[shark]

I think he is slyly alluding to Dennis Gray. I’m told there is a report that is labelled not to be published till his death but suspect this relates to a financial scandal generally known as “Brazilgate” rather than anything else and I don’t want hearsay about Gray discussing here.

[northern yob]

4. “It’s what the membership want”, this might be true but I don’t think the membership realise how much it’s costing them. If someone as well connected as Northern Yob is unaware what about everyone else? Not helped by a certain amount of chicanery on UKC threads like throwing Heritage in with Access funding, claiming volunteer time and charity money as BMC contribution (I appreciate it is managed by the BMC).

Hi Teaboy thanks for trying to put me straight, I’m still not really any the wiser though….. sorry.

What is comp climbing actually costing the bmc? Given the funding it receives and the money it wastes/uses to provide the services it’s required to do, to receive said funding? I’m gonna need it in a fairly black and white basic figure as I’m definitely financially illiterate (can anyone give me this figure?) just to clarify my position, I’ve been involved with comp climbing in one way or another for about 20yrs and all I’ve really seen is the bmc make a mess of it. I’ve seen lots of well intentioned good people get involved and basically either lose the faith or join the gravy train… the only thing I know is that despite good intentions the bmc has tried and failed to run comps and the team well.

I definitely have a problem with authority and organisations so I’m definitely slightly biased, but lots of other aspects of the bmc haven’t struck me as efficient or effective over the last 20yrs, I value the access work the bmc does and has done over this period, but from an outside point of view I’ve seen an organisation that seems like once people get in they don’t get out(because it’s an easy ride) I’d love to be put right on this, it’s just my biased opinion, hopefully I’m wrong but as you point out if someone as connected as me thinks these kind of things the job really is fucked.

We need to be represented as a community by some kind of organisation and comp climbing needs to be given the resources and support it requires if these are at odds split them if not they really need to sort their shit out…

[Dingdong]

Personally I think the BMC should be separate to the entity that funds and runs competition climbing and teams in the UK/internationally. I believe the BMC have more important focused work to get on with: access and relationship management with landowners, land stewardships, lobbying government for access law changes, sustainability, repairing the environment where people walk, climb etc. It’s hard for a company to be focused on all that and also running comps, a team, international comps when the funding is as they say, an issue.

I also think the fact that the BMC tries to spread itself so thin is why comps and the team suffer and also why the outdoors side suffer.

[abarro81]

I get the impression it's not just your opinion... from the rumour mill, it seems like the system gets in the way of the top athletes more than it helps them, it doesn't sounds like parents are happy with the youth stuff, it doesn't sound like plenty of people actually working in the comp system are particularly happy...

It seems like there are two key issues (the first might be better divided into two though):
1. Poor management of the BMC, and poor management of GB Climbing
2. Should the BMC and GB Climbing split

If by "how much does comp climbing cost the BMC" we really mean "would the BMC's other work be financially better off without comps" (which for may of us is probably the real question?), this is a a question that you can try to calculate an answer to, but it will be an estimate - you should know how much it costs, and will know for sure that some grants would move to a new separate governing body, but you'd be estimating how many members you'd lose as a result and estimating which other (e.g. grassroots) grants you'd then lose to the new organisation. Still, even if it's not an exact figure, someone should at least show some scenarios and clearly lay out what's what, so people can see the broad figures and the uncertainties...

[yetix]

Also how many members might you gain as a result of splitting and people feeling more confident in the direction...

[spidermonkey09]

Agree with the need for some clearly laid out figures but I think people would be shocked about how much funding used for access is likely tied to the BMC running comp climbing as well. An Access Fund style organisation would be much more dependent on member subs and donations for income. Frankly I think a lot of people on ukc (and on here, but especially there) talk a good game about how willing they'd be to pay large subs for access work and/or make one off donations but I remain somewhat dubious.

[petejh]

An alternative is that the Alpine Club becomes the current ‘BMC’, minus GB climbing; and the BMC becomes the current ‘GB Climbing’, minus the BMC. Simple 

[Dingdong]

For me the lack of transparency in where money goes is a massive turn off plus the lack of real perks other than the ground work. I’m subbed to national trust due to things like free parking which I feel bmc should also look into.

I really agree with Pete. It feels like the two halves kind of disrupt each other and a split would be preferable, then either side can really focus and hone in on the work.

[Will Hunt]

Don't even mention it as a joke, Pete. In thinking about which organisations would be able to take over access work from the BMC the obvious candidate seemed to be the CC. If people think the BMC is overly bureaucratic and slow to make decisions then I'd say you ain't seen nothing.

[spidermonkey09]

For me the lack of transparency in where money goes is a massive turn off plus the lack of real perks other than the ground work. I’m subbed to national trust due to things like free parking which I feel bmc should also look into.

I really agree with Pete. It feels like the two halves kind of disrupt each other and a split would be preferable, then either side can really focus and hone in on the work.

Nothing personal but this kind of thing is exactly why I am dubious that splitting access off would result in a boom in members who had allegedly not joined due to the BMC involvement in comps. Comparing the BMC with the NT is totally pointless, the organisations could not be further apart in terms of both membership and finance. The NT has 5.7million members for Christ's sake; the BMC has 80,000. No wonder they can offer free parking given they own dozens of sites all round the UK!

Basically I think there is a very obvious ceiling to what a comparatively small membership organisation can do and people seem to want an awful lot for their 40 quid a year. This is not me saying things couldn't and shouldn't be improved, I think it's a flawed organisation which needs improvement.

[yetix]

I don't understand why the BMC couldn't continue as it is but with an additional funding mechanism of donations which is ring-fenced for let's say access if people wish to go down that route? People can choose to be members, others can choose to just donate to the access team if that's what's important to them. The access team can then get a portion of funding that's from BMC memberships like it does now and also get donations.

The 2 income streams would be no different to how GB Climbing is funded with some income coming from membership and another portion coming from Sport England which is ring-fenced.

Perhaps exploring new ways of attracting engagement and funding from the public is something the BMC should be considering. It seems pretty clear there are an alarming number of people such as myself that are happy to donate to access and don't really want or need anything else that the BMC has to  offer.

I don't see why it has to be Membership or an Access Fund style model, rather than considering a hybrid. Clearly many people who are members, former members or have never been members don't like the current approach and dismissing or ignoring that isn't working. Has this even been entertained before?

[petejh]

Don't even mention it as a joke, Pete. In thinking about which organisations would be able to take over access work from the BMC the obvious candidate seemed to be the CC. If people think the BMC is overly bureaucratic and slow to make decisions then I'd say you ain't seen nothing.

Oh I know, CC member here and they make the BMC look like Elon Musk.

Only half-joking tbh.. where there’s a will there’s a way etc. But obviously the most sensible solution imo would be something that looks like Shark’s idea of retaining the GB Climbing part, but strictly controlling resource allocation and costs so it doesn’t dilute the rest of the BMC’s (more important imo) work.
The problem, is that you only have to look at the incentives of the burgeoning comp/coaching scene to suspect that this ‘ring-fencing by the adults’ approach probably wouldn’t work over the long term, because the glory, money, fanfare and ‘glamour’ is in ‘elite coaching’ and competitive climbing. I suspect scenes like these incentivise certain types of characters into management roles. In my opinion that’s likely the source of the tension. A BMC that was really effective at doing what 9/10th of its members want would be an attractive employer to managers who like being boring and sphagnum moss.

[spidermonkey09]

I don't understand why the BMC couldn't continue as it is but with an additional funding mechanism of donations which is ring-fenced for let's say access if people wish to go down that route? People can choose to be members, others can choose to just donate to the access team if that's what's important to them. The access team can then get a portion of funding that's from BMC memberships like it does now and also get donations.

The 2 income streams would be no different to how GB Climbing is funded with some income coming from membership and another portion coming from Sport England which is ring-fenced.

Perhaps exploring new ways of attracting engagement and funding from the public is something the BMC should be considering. It seems pretty clear there are an alarming number of people such as myself that are happy to donate to access and don't really want or need anything else that the BMC has to  offer.

I don't see why it has to be Membership or an Access Fund style model, rather than considering a hybrid. Clearly many people who are members, former members or have never been members don't like the current approach and dismissing or ignoring that isn't working. Has this even been entertained before?

I guess because you need the recurring revenue that subs provide to run a functional representative membership organisation. I dont think you can employ a team of people for Access work in the hope that donations every year are sufficient to maintain them. I know nothing about governance but that's my immediate thought. I imagine registered charities are set up differently to allow this but then again they aren't representative bodies so have different responsibilities.

[yetix]

But you'd continue to get the membership in a current fashion because they'd still get a portion of the membership? Unless you anticipate that they'd loose a large portion of membership as a result of giving people a choice?

If there's governance issues then why weren't there when donations came to help fund the purchase of Longridge?

Genuinely just trying to understand because it seems that people concerns and rationale for not being a member or choosing to no longer be a member is simply dismissed because you can't understand their perspective. This offers a solution to that which doesn't involve either lots of people leaving due to not being represented well or the BMC splitting which are 2 things which are continuing to be raised whether rightly or wrongly. I've spoke to many people recently about this topic and not met many who feel represented by the BMC in its current state which is surely alarming?

Perhaps, if that's not a viable path the BMC should be considering other pathways because currently it seems pretty clear that many members and potential members are unhappy with what's going on in terms of the access team.

I'd appreciate if rather than being quick to dismiss you perhaps look to offer new suggestions because what's there isn't working and that seems pretty clear?

[mrjonathanr]

Couldn’t the BMC just do everything it currently does minus comps, which would be funded and run by ‘GB Climbing’ or similar?

The arguments against this might be that memberships from those involved in comps might disappear off to that organisation- but how much do comp registration members account for now in ££?

The second could be the revenue that comp involvement brings effectively cross subsidises other BMC work and enables economies of scale. That’s looking pretty improbable to me right now, so hiving off comp work looks like a good move imo

Additionally, as Pete points out, elite sport attracts different profiles of employee. Again, looking at the financial mismanagement and the arrogant statement from current management, that also looks like a good argument for dropping comp work from the BMC’s portfolio.

[Fiend]

Basically I think there is a very obvious ceiling to what a comparatively small membership organisation can do and people seem to want an awful lot for their 40 quid a year.

I just want it all to go towards access and sandwiches. Is that okay??

[spidermonkey09]

But you'd continue to get the membership in a current fashion because they'd still get a portion of the membership? Unless you anticipate that they'd loose a large portion of membership as a result of giving people a choice?

If there's governance issues then why weren't there when donations came to help fund the purchase of Longridge?

Genuinely just trying to understand because it seems that people concerns and rationale for not being a member or choosing to no longer be a member is simply dismissed because you can't understand their perspective. This offers a solution to that which doesn't involve either lots of people leaving due to not being represented well or the BMC splitting which are 2 things which are continuing to be raised whether rightly or wrongly. I've spoke to many people recently about this topic and not met many who feel represented by the BMC in its current state which is surely alarming?

Perhaps, if that's not a viable path the BMC should be considering other pathways because currently it seems pretty clear that many members and potential members are unhappy with what's going on in terms of the access team.

I'd appreciate if rather than being quick to dismiss you perhaps look to offer new suggestions because what's there isn't working and that seems pretty clear?

Sorry I dont mean to be dismissive, I guess my view is that the current setup, administered properly, is probably the best option of a set of suboptimal ones. I'll reply properly later to flesh that out a bit.

I guess my somewhat exasperated attitude comes from volunteering for the BMC for several years and seeing the huge amount of stuff that is shovelled our way, it's all well meaning but unrealistic imo.

[mrjonathanr]

This

administered properly,

is the tricky bit, isn’t it?

[Will Hunt]

I once read something about the BMC and I vowed never to repeat that mistake again, so these thoughts are likely to be factually incorrect - please do correct me.

1. There's no reason why indoor, outdoor, and hillwalking interests can't be represented by one organisation. It's just down to management. To say otherwise is like saying that universities can't research and teach, that Shell can't run oil rigs and petrol stations etc etc.

2. Is the loss to the access division that big in the grand scheme of things? It sounds like they've fucked up the membership projections and they're having to reduce headcount (which is really shit for those individuals and I feel for them) but they do say they still have more people in post than they normally do.

3. When the Climb Britain thing was going on, and when the BMC was marketing itself more to hillwalkers, I seem to remember there being talk by climbers that this was good for us because we'd take the money from them and use it for our access work. In the case that the situation is reversed people are lining up to do dirty protests at the National Championships - is that fair? Lots of people wanted the BMC to buy Kilnsey, no doubt using a load of hillwalkers (and the vast majority of climbing members who won't go to the crag) cash to do so.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect each arm of the group to completely ringfence its own budget - management need some flexibility to apportion resource as needed (with some reasonable limits perhaps).

[Nails]

I used to feel very strongly that everything climbing-wise was better kept under one organisation. This latest debacle has made me start to think the opposite. However, the gross lack of transparency prevents anything other than positions based upon gut-feelings. There seems to me a continuum from Competitions to Walls to Bouldering to Outdoors Climbing to Mountaineering. Not sure where Hill walking fits (probably somewhere all across the latter three). My opposition to breaking these things up was largely based on the feeling that separation might lead to organisations pulling in different directions (particularly with regard to the management of all things outdoor climbing). I feel like possibly just Competitions could be successfully separated without this affecting discussion of all things outdoors.

My other observation was that Sporting organisations seem to be afflicted by these transparency/incompetence type issues. My experience within BMX (with my kids) is that British Cycling as well as the UCE and the UCI are all pretty atrocious in these areas. I think Sporting organisations have these issues because they aren't really companies with clear goals, they have large numbers of volunteer staff but also a number of professional staff. The professional staff are often people trained in "Sports Management". Probably based on my own basic sneering prejudices, but I have met very few "Sports Managers" who I've found myself to be at all impressed by. They often have a background in "Elite Sport Development Pathway Champion Coordination”, or some such, which they consider to be eminently transferable across football, ping pong, mountaineering etc. Once they wind up at the BMC, they have now discovered a “Great Passion for the Outdoors” which they can prove as they go walking occasionally. Anyway I find myself Rambling … literally.

[andy moles]

Sorry I dont mean to be dismissive, I guess my view is that the current setup, administered properly, is probably the best option of a set of suboptimal ones.

I'm willing to be persuaded on this, but it seems to me that most of what the BMC represents, from indoor climbing to mountaineering (and therefore hillwalking because there's no bright line there), are logical and compatible bedfellows.

Competition seems like the sore thumb, fundamentally because it's a sport. Its aims and needs are just totally different.

How much would the administrative complexity of the organisation be alleviated by separating GB Climbing?

[Dingdong]

Having two very different organisations vying for funds and manpower just seems silly to me but what do I know.

As a BMC member I would also more than happily pay extra or donate monthly into an access only fund/pot if it’s spending was fully transparent and showed a good breakdown of where that money is going. The access reps already do really good work and I think it’s a travesty that they’ve reduced the headcount, though I bet the CEOs/directors haven’t cut their pay have they.

[Moo]

An access fund sounds like an extremely good idea.

[Tony S]

An access fund sounds like an extremely good idea.

You can already give to any number of charitable bodies that work to improve access. Even the BMC’s “own” Access and Conservation Trust: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-access-conservation-trust

Charitable giving is very different in the US compared to the UK: fewer people give but those that do, give a great deal more.

[Tony S]

…. I bet the CEOs/directors haven’t cut their pay have they.

The directors are voluntary; and their expenses seem pretty minimal. The CEO probably has taken a real-terms cut this year (this is a guess). I doubt (based on reported BMC costs and headcount) the CEO is on stupid money.

But, fundamentally, if you want a well run organisation it is logically inconsistent to think that an organisation should not pay a reasonable (comparable to other similar bodies) salary to its CEO.