UKH

Whilst the BMC Board is currently unwilling to communicate with us, Members Council should. They met at the weekend and items high on the agenda should have included:

- Ascertaining the financial position

- Update on the “listening sessions” with the comps community (last session was last Thursday)

- What the Board is going to do to put GBClimbing back on course 

- Any new MC Nominated Directors elected to the Board (Andy Say said he was standing)

As part of the work in resetting the budget earlier this year a budgeting error was discovered which the FAC are looking into.  This work will take some time to complete but the FAC and Board will provide an update to the MC on 24 Oct.  Once any impacts of the error are clarified an update on the error and any corrections will be provided to members; until then please allow FAC to undertake their work to provide the Board and MC with the facts which can be then actioned. 

Whatever the outcome of this work the headline is that while the BMC finances are under pressure they are fundamentally OK; membership still raising, albeit on same trajectory as last year, and the Board and MC have no concerns that the BMC will 'go bust'. 

These continue with Paul Ratcliffe, Freddie Naish and Laura Needham leading.  They hope to finish the sessions and provide recommendations to the Board later this month.  As volunteers they are putting a huge amount of time into this work and are working as quickly as they can.  The Board and MC strongly supports the work they are doing. 

 Depends on the findings of the 'listening sessions' and the resultant recommendations.

Andy Say & Trevor Smith appointed.  Pete Salenieks reappointed for 1 year.

Edits to correct typos

Thank you for responding. 

Can you elaborate on what you mean by ‘fundamentally ok’ ie has the reserve policy minimum (which I understand is 6 months running costs) been breached or is in risk of being breached by the year end. 

Does the Board have confidence in the leadership of GBClimbing or not? This was the main thrust of the comps community open letter of ‘no confidence’ but wasn’t addressed in the BMC response (both published on UKC).

A £100K + "budgeting error".  You couldn't make it up.  The FAC would have had oversight of the budget so investigating their own cock-up, don't expect much clarity there.  How did the recently departed and much-praised CFO feature in all this?

I appreciate the BMC is a members organisation, but is it reasonable to expect a blow by blow developments? Clearly it lot of problems to deal with and members deserve to know what is being done. Personally, I am fine with the idea that it will take some time and I'll receivie an update when there is something substantive to communicate. 

It  is £500k and no it has not been breached

As we don't know the outcome of the FAC work I can not provide a definitive answer at this time.  That said the Board currently consider the risk of breach is low, even taking account of the FAC feedback so far.

Were the risk of a breach to rise then in line with normal business practice the Board will take the necessary action to prevent, or quickly address, such a breach. 

We have provided a response to the open letter on UKC.  The Board will provide a further update when we have received and considered the recommendations from Paul, Freddie and Laura.

To summarise.

• The CEO has departed at very short notice for unexplained reasons
• The CFO has departed
• The Company Secretary / In-house lawyer has departed
• There is a £100k + budgeting error
• 70% of competitors think GBC is rubbish
• You can buy your veg via a BMC approved supplier.

Have I missed anything?

Budget overspend because budget based on unrealistic growth predictions

Yeah I agree with you, the expectation here is insane. If anyone wants that level of detail, join the members committee rather than constantly whining about it on the internet.

It's fine that it takes time to get to grips with all of this, but what's missing is regular progress communications, even if there's very little progress, just the fact that members are being communicated to is important.

I understand your point. However, the BMC is in a crisis of its own making and the response  lacks urgency and adequacy.

Shark is correct here.

Basically, in a period of self-created zero confidence in the organisation the worst thing it can do is sever lines of communication. 

I think we all understand things take time but when you are recovering (hopefully) from a shit-show like this, one of the things you need to do is gain the confidence of the members. A policy of tight lips does not help achieve this.

This is especially true when there is a history of being less than forth coming so that vital information has had to be wrung out of the organisation by concerned members.

So when people ask what is going on, it might be awkward, it might be a PITA, it might be inconvenient, it might still be chaos and it might be too soon to demonstrate anything concrete but it is also time to give an honest and reasonable update.

As outsiders to the machinations it is reasonable (given the current history) to equate a lack of clear communication with "more shit-show" rather than "quietly and competently working to fix things".

I agree that it is not reasonable to expect daily updates. However there are a lot of current issues which are causing concern to members, and not just among the usual critics.  Information about finances promised at an Area meeting doesn't appear to have been forthcoming, or not in the detail which we had been led to expect. The response to the UKC article raised more questions than it answered.  The response to the open letter about GBC was similarly bland - perhaps that was to be expected, but a bit more detail about how it would be dealt with (which Andy Syme has now given here) would have been reassuring.  

Insurance, which is a crucial benefit for many members (and an important source of income for the BMC), went offline without explanation at one of the busiest times of the year, and when it was restored this was again with no explanation or apology. This is poor customer service, and I'd expect better from a commercial provider never mind an organisation which is ultimately answerable to its members (and of course all its customers are also members).

So I don't expect a blow by blow account, but at the same time a bit more communication would be welcome.  Without it, we are left with rumours and speculation.

There is communication and then there is communication.

How much of BMC communication has been aimed at the athletes? Why do they hide behind management speak. You have to wonder who they are talking to. Why can't they have an open conversation with those involved as people? 

The insurance thing was something to do with the underwriters deciding they weren't happy about something and unilaterally withdrawing the policies from what I understand.

It was disappointing that it was done so poorly, but here we are.

Just a quick reminder to yourself, and everyone posting, to keep the tone constructive. If posts descend into personal insults this thread will be locked.

Can you be a bit clearer about what point you are making here.

GB Climbing via its paid staff has its own lines of communication with the athletes on practical matters. The BMC is also currently communicating with the athletes and other concerned members of the comps community at a higher and more strategic level via the listening sessions. The feedback from these sessions will form some recommendations. Whether this step is necessary before the Board takes action, given the CCPG report findings and the open letter of ‘no confidence’, is a moot point.

Going forward the most significant higher level representation from the athletes will be from their representative or representatives on the CCPG. 

Noted, although the removed post wasn’t mine in case anyone draws the wrong conclusion 

On second thoughts are you responding to the Board communications such as the BMC letter of response and Andy Syme’s responses above? If so I agree. 

For example in their shoes IMO a more satisfactory and straightforward response all round would have been along the lines of:

“As a Board we are saddened to read your letter and appreciate this was a big step for you to take. The shortcomings of GBClimbing were highlighted in the recently publicised CCPG report and we are already working through the issues raised in the conclusion. In addition we are currently undertaking “listening sessions” and urge all signatories to participate in those sessions and express themselves without fear or favour. The findings of the CCPG report, your letter and the feedback from the listening sessions will help us formulate a set of further actions which we will set on X date with an online presentation a few days after with a Q&A which is open to all.

We all want a well functioning competition body that we can all be proud of where athletes have the best opportunities to realise their potential and by working together we can achieve that and are deeply sorry and apologise that has not been the case to date”
 

I think since you seem to know how to run the BMC I think you should put yourself up as the CEO or President. I don't mean to be sarcastic. But I found that a lot of people are willing to criticise the BMC from the armchair but not willing to run it. 

That's the same with any public committee meeting, everyone has masses so say until you reach the agenda item 'volunteers for the vacant post of ....". 

That's what I'd heard too. But that is my point - all we've heard is rumour and speculation from unverified sources. Most organisations facing such a problem would have immediately communicated with their customers to let them know what was happening (and perhaps reassure them that policies they may have already taken out weren't at risk). 

If there was a problem with the policies, who was responsible for that? Is the BMC doing anything to try to recover the income from lost sales as a result of this apparent error?

As you say, it's where we are.  As a customer of its insurance division, it's not good enough.  This isn't a governance issue, it's just bad business and poor management.

I did do just that and applied for a couple of the Senior Management roles previously. However, as the saying goes there were more suitably qualified and experienced candidates..

As far as I am aware, the BMC did not make any direct reply to the letter.

A response was sent to (and published by) UKC; and an email was sent to all GB Team members whether they had signed the letter or not, largely duplicating the UKC response and not really addressing the content of the open letter itself. (It gave the impression of having been written before the open letter was sent, or of being drafted by someone who hadn't read the open letter. Or maybe it was simply more concerned at managing the content of the UKC article than in actually listening to what the open letter had to say.) Incidentally, that email to GB Team athletes was co-signed by one of the GB leadership team who the open letter expressed no confidence in.

Lots of the signatories of the open letter are GB Team athletes or their parents, so in sending that email the BMC could be said to have responded to the letter. But many of the signatories are not in the GB Team (they may be athletes outside the team, coaches, etc), and those people have not received any response from the BMC. You might have thought a brief, direct reply saying, 'Thank you for your letter. We'll look into it,' at the very least, would have been courteous.  

Good for you!

Wrong haircut I expect. 

😂

I think you'd be classified as on old fart like me 😇

Would he be classed as 'Poacher turned Gamekeeper'
or, 'Gamekeeper turned Poacher'? 🙄

Fair enough, good on you.

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

Not the kind of slight I’d expect from you.

Just to be clear I had already been employed by the BMC as Commercial Partnerships Manager and my motivation for applying for that job was to put something back in return for all that climbing has given me. I’m also proud of what I achieved in that role but it was also a hugely frustrating experience as I was driven to get things done.

I subsequently applied for the other roles with the same motivation and sense of obligation but with reservations as I knew what I’d be letting myself in for again and so in some ways it was relief to be rejected.

Whilst I can’t claim I don’t ever bear grudges that doesn’t happen to be the case in this instance. 

Rather cryptic, Jim!

Just who is the scorned woman here?