This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Just completed the survey sent out by email about the BMC facing a big funding cut from sport England. A quick google suggests that big sporting organisations are facing similar cuts but the rationale that they are only for the elite and not helping people to get active seems misplaced for the BMC. Anyone know what's going on? Does it have anything to do with the rejection of 'climb Britain' or is that just idle speculation?
In reply to sheelba:
(Worse than) idle speculation. Sport England are reducing their funding across the board over the next few years; this has been expected for a while now, and is across many sports.
(Worse than) idle speculation. Sport England are reducing their funding across the board over the next few years; this has been expected for a while now, and is across many sports.
3
In reply to sheelba:
mmm that is some delicious speculation, should be fun.
My understanding is that the national lottery has been doing quite badly and so haven't been giving Sport England as much money so they have to find savings somewhere.
mmm that is some delicious speculation, should be fun.
My understanding is that the national lottery has been doing quite badly and so haven't been giving Sport England as much money so they have to find savings somewhere.
5
In reply to JHiley:
Indeed so.
And all those sports who've been spending as much money given to them by Sport England as they can, are now going to find that all these new employees can't be funded from the same source.
Which means they'll try and get the money by putting up their subscriptions/membership fees/whatever.
The very last thing they'll do is cut back on (what some may well refer to as) useless pariahs within their sport, who have been receiving inflated wages for actually doing very little.
This is particularly with regard to what they have done for the lesser lights within their respective sports.
Indeed so.
And all those sports who've been spending as much money given to them by Sport England as they can, are now going to find that all these new employees can't be funded from the same source.
Which means they'll try and get the money by putting up their subscriptions/membership fees/whatever.
The very last thing they'll do is cut back on (what some may well refer to as) useless pariahs within their sport, who have been receiving inflated wages for actually doing very little.
This is particularly with regard to what they have done for the lesser lights within their respective sports.
3
5
In reply to sheelba:
At the recent Peak Area Meeting Dave Turnbull said (correct me if the following information is not a correct refection of the meeting) that in a recent survey showed there is a much bigger proportion of the population participating in climbing. As sport england base funding on this information climbing in theory would be due more money, except the money had already been allocated but the BMC is trying to negotiate. They have also employed Shark in a commercial manager to try and increase the revenue of the BMC so bridging this funding gap
At the recent Peak Area Meeting Dave Turnbull said (correct me if the following information is not a correct refection of the meeting) that in a recent survey showed there is a much bigger proportion of the population participating in climbing. As sport england base funding on this information climbing in theory would be due more money, except the money had already been allocated but the BMC is trying to negotiate. They have also employed Shark in a commercial manager to try and increase the revenue of the BMC so bridging this funding gap
4
In reply to sheelba:
UK Sport funds elite performance. Sport England funds grassroots participation. It's Sport England that funds BMC.
The reduction in funding is largely down to the drop in sales of lottery tickets, apparently Sport England is getting less dosh so its 'fundees' get less. I'd have said that Sport England are largely pretty happy with BMC as a grassroots organisation.
Be interesting to see if the Olympic Climbing Team gets any UK Sport funding.........
> the rationale that they are only for the elite and not helping people to get active seems misplaced for the BMC. Anyone know what's going on? Does it have anything to do with the rejection of 'climb Britain' or is that just idle
UK Sport funds elite performance. Sport England funds grassroots participation. It's Sport England that funds BMC.
The reduction in funding is largely down to the drop in sales of lottery tickets, apparently Sport England is getting less dosh so its 'fundees' get less. I'd have said that Sport England are largely pretty happy with BMC as a grassroots organisation.
Be interesting to see if the Olympic Climbing Team gets any UK Sport funding.........
9
In reply to fred99:
Well....that is what you are SUPPOSED to do with the money. Stick it in an equity fund and Sport England would probably get right cross.
>are now going to find that all these new employees can't be funded from the same source.
Obviously.
There's some devious buggers out there, aren't there! Bet they'll do it in secret as well.
Some may refer to them like that. Others might refer to them as staff that they have found are doing a good job and they would like to retain as opposed to simply 'hire and fire'.
Que?
> And all those sports who've been spending as much money given to them by Sport England as they can,
Well....that is what you are SUPPOSED to do with the money. Stick it in an equity fund and Sport England would probably get right cross.
>are now going to find that all these new employees can't be funded from the same source.
Obviously.
> Which means they'll try and get the money by putting up their subscriptions/membership fees/whatever.
There's some devious buggers out there, aren't there! Bet they'll do it in secret as well.
> The very last thing they'll do is cut back on (what some may well refer to as) useless pariahs within their sport, who have been receiving inflated wages for actually doing very little.
Some may refer to them like that. Others might refer to them as staff that they have found are doing a good job and they would like to retain as opposed to simply 'hire and fire'.
> This is particularly with regard to what they have done for the lesser lights within their respective sports.
Que?
Post edited at 13:32
16
In reply to Andy Say:
It's not just a BMC/sport problem. An awful lot of vol groups have become used to one or two big funders , noteably the lottery, and have taken their eye off sustainable fundraising from other sources. Now they are facing a cliff edge which is resulting in redundancies across the voluntary sector.
Basing almost your entire national "good works" budget on casual gambling was never a sustainable model, but it worked for long enough for everyone to get complacent. In some ways, the diversion of funds from good works to the 2012 olympics didn't help either
It's not just a BMC/sport problem. An awful lot of vol groups have become used to one or two big funders , noteably the lottery, and have taken their eye off sustainable fundraising from other sources. Now they are facing a cliff edge which is resulting in redundancies across the voluntary sector.
Basing almost your entire national "good works" budget on casual gambling was never a sustainable model, but it worked for long enough for everyone to get complacent. In some ways, the diversion of funds from good works to the 2012 olympics didn't help either
3
In reply to toad:
If there's one thing the BMC _ought_ to be able to deal with...
> Now they are facing a cliff edge...
If there's one thing the BMC _ought_ to be able to deal with...
50
In reply to toad:
Eh?
Would think that voluntary roles are not likely to be effected by budget cuts as volunteers are generally unpaid to start with.
Although cuts to any funds that cover costs for volunteers will most likely be the pinch, which afaik is area reps and the like. (But again, afaik those donating that time and effort don't receive much financial support in the current model the BMC use, hard to say from outside not knowing what they spend our memberships and sport England funding on)
Maybe these budget cuts could give momentum to a reshuffle in BMCs structure and a return to focus on grassroots issues, rather than spunking cash on rebranding and Olympic pushes. (Which is so removed from grassroots to begin with)
> Now they are facing a cliff edge which is resulting in redundancies across the voluntary sector.
Eh?
Would think that voluntary roles are not likely to be effected by budget cuts as volunteers are generally unpaid to start with.
Although cuts to any funds that cover costs for volunteers will most likely be the pinch, which afaik is area reps and the like. (But again, afaik those donating that time and effort don't receive much financial support in the current model the BMC use, hard to say from outside not knowing what they spend our memberships and sport England funding on)
Maybe these budget cuts could give momentum to a reshuffle in BMCs structure and a return to focus on grassroots issues, rather than spunking cash on rebranding and Olympic pushes. (Which is so removed from grassroots to begin with)
2
7
In reply to toad:
I think the thing is, with the BMC, that core activities are completely sustainable. SE funding was for the 'dream topping' of projects that the BMC would have liked to have done but couldn't afford. And, of course, you do get used to doing 'good things'. But the BMC wouldn't fold as a result of SE funding cuts!
I think the thing is, with the BMC, that core activities are completely sustainable. SE funding was for the 'dream topping' of projects that the BMC would have liked to have done but couldn't afford. And, of course, you do get used to doing 'good things'. But the BMC wouldn't fold as a result of SE funding cuts!
3
In reply to Andy Say:
I'm sure you are right, but off the top of my head I can think of 3 reasonably solid NGOs that are now in fairly serious retrenchment who would have said exactly the same thing 5 or 6 years ago. It pays to keep an eye on the balance of different funders and not become too reliant on one income stream
I'm sure you are right, but off the top of my head I can think of 3 reasonably solid NGOs that are now in fairly serious retrenchment who would have said exactly the same thing 5 or 6 years ago. It pays to keep an eye on the balance of different funders and not become too reliant on one income stream
1
In reply to toad:
In these uber cynical days, don't be surprised if people take exception to sloppy terminology which that arguably is. (Additionally, everyone knows UKC is probably the most pedantic place on the internet...)
These days using the term "voluntary sector" is at best incorrect and at worst thoroughly misleading. The "third sector", "charitable sector" or "non-profit sector" all have the advantage of being slightly more accurate, although I think the later is the most descriptive.
The BMC for example is certainly NOT a voluntary organisation in any real sense, especially when compared with a true voluntary organisation like Mountain Rescue. It is a both a membership organisation and a state recognised and funded sports governing body. It could also be described as, depending on your opinion, either:
- A highly professional non-profit organisation that delivers value for money for its members and who's activities benefit the wider public
or
- An organisation run for the benefit of the senior staff who are a bunch of ineffectual bureaucrats doing pointless invented jobs funded by the overly gullible.
(I probably tend towards the former view, but the BMC membership and their elected representatives do need to guard against the later, although possibly more in terms of the perception rather than in reality.)
The "charitable sector" in the UK is a £10+ billion industry. In many areas a decreasing amount of activity actually involves volunteers and paid staff now dominate. In various instances the difference between "charities" and businesses are negligible. In many cases the charitable status is clearly just a choice that offers significant tax breaks.
All organisations are different, some are good, some bad, some truly heroic. I'm probably about as cynical as it gets but the BMC does get my money every year and I try to I make a point of understanding how it's funded and what exactly it's doing
> Sorry, was talking more generally about vol sector
In these uber cynical days, don't be surprised if people take exception to sloppy terminology which that arguably is. (Additionally, everyone knows UKC is probably the most pedantic place on the internet...)
These days using the term "voluntary sector" is at best incorrect and at worst thoroughly misleading. The "third sector", "charitable sector" or "non-profit sector" all have the advantage of being slightly more accurate, although I think the later is the most descriptive.
The BMC for example is certainly NOT a voluntary organisation in any real sense, especially when compared with a true voluntary organisation like Mountain Rescue. It is a both a membership organisation and a state recognised and funded sports governing body. It could also be described as, depending on your opinion, either:
- A highly professional non-profit organisation that delivers value for money for its members and who's activities benefit the wider public
or
- An organisation run for the benefit of the senior staff who are a bunch of ineffectual bureaucrats doing pointless invented jobs funded by the overly gullible.
(I probably tend towards the former view, but the BMC membership and their elected representatives do need to guard against the later, although possibly more in terms of the perception rather than in reality.)
The "charitable sector" in the UK is a £10+ billion industry. In many areas a decreasing amount of activity actually involves volunteers and paid staff now dominate. In various instances the difference between "charities" and businesses are negligible. In many cases the charitable status is clearly just a choice that offers significant tax breaks.
All organisations are different, some are good, some bad, some truly heroic. I'm probably about as cynical as it gets but the BMC does get my money every year and I try to I make a point of understanding how it's funded and what exactly it's doing
5
In reply to sheelba:
I'm surprised more people don't seem to have seen the email. What they were suggesting was corporate support creating an affinity partnership with a private company. The survey then went on to ask about the benefits you feel you receive from BMC membership. To me it put a lot of focus on being a member for the benefits it gives you rather than because it is the right thing to do if climb regularly outdoors in this country.
I would urge everyone to fill it in and if you are not a member then you should be, the BMC clearly needs you now more than ever. No organisation is perfect but they do a lot of good work which all climbers who climb regularly outdoors benefit from. I opposed 'climb Britain' partly because I felt the they were becoming too commercial and seeing themselves too much like private enterprise rather than a public organisation this seems to me like a much bigger lurch in that direction, albeit in response to clear financial problems.
I'm surprised more people don't seem to have seen the email. What they were suggesting was corporate support creating an affinity partnership with a private company. The survey then went on to ask about the benefits you feel you receive from BMC membership. To me it put a lot of focus on being a member for the benefits it gives you rather than because it is the right thing to do if climb regularly outdoors in this country.
I would urge everyone to fill it in and if you are not a member then you should be, the BMC clearly needs you now more than ever. No organisation is perfect but they do a lot of good work which all climbers who climb regularly outdoors benefit from. I opposed 'climb Britain' partly because I felt the they were becoming too commercial and seeing themselves too much like private enterprise rather than a public organisation this seems to me like a much bigger lurch in that direction, albeit in response to clear financial problems.
2
1
In reply to sheelba:
The BMC are useless as far as I am concerned, jobs for the boys...Austrian Alpine Club is much better, or the French Alpine club.
The BMC are useless as far as I am concerned, jobs for the boys...Austrian Alpine Club is much better, or the French Alpine club.
5
16
In reply to sheelba:
I suspect it just hasn't done all the rounds yet. I'm a member but have seen no survey.
I suspect it just hasn't done all the rounds yet. I'm a member but have seen no survey.
4
In reply to Jim 1003:
Yes, and a good job those organisations do of looking after crag access in the UK??
If you just want cheap alpine insurance, go elsewhere.
> The BMC are useless as far as I am concerned, jobs for the boys...Austrian Alpine Club is much better, or the French Alpine club.
Yes, and a good job those organisations do of looking after crag access in the UK??
If you just want cheap alpine insurance, go elsewhere.
Post edited at 18:40
15
In reply to Jim 1003:
Have you seen the Osterreichischer Alpenverein's headquarters and checked their staffing levels? Mega bucks....
Have you seen the Osterreichischer Alpenverein's headquarters and checked their staffing levels? Mega bucks....
2
In reply to Andy Say:
2 women run the British section, you know that, should you not say you are an ex BMC person...Andy doesn't say...
2 women run the British section, you know that, should you not say you are an ex BMC person...Andy doesn't say...
Post edited at 22:53
1
4
In reply to Andy Say:
Have you seen the size of the mountains in Austria?
> Have you seen the Osterreichischer Alpenverein's headquarters and checked their staffing levels? Mega bucks....
Have you seen the size of the mountains in Austria?
2
1
In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
No - that can't be true!
'latter' surely?
> ... Additionally, everyone knows UKC is probably the most pedantic place on the internet...)
No - that can't be true!
> ... although I think the later is the most descriptive.
'latter' surely?
14
In reply to Scotch Bingington:
'It's four in the morning, the end of December
I'm writing you now just to see if you're better...'
Ah Lenny, if he'd only discovered the joys of UKC it would have been even better than the ladies!
Mick
'It's four in the morning, the end of December
I'm writing you now just to see if you're better...'
Ah Lenny, if he'd only discovered the joys of UKC it would have been even better than the ladies!
Mick
Post edited at 09:26
In reply to Jim 1003:
What's with the 'Ex'? I'm a current member who goes to area meetings and even got to attend the last National Council meeting.
But you seem to have a problem with the size and expense of the BMC and its 'jobs for the boys' and compare it unfavourably with this - http://www.alpenverein.at/portal/der-verein/ueber-uns/geschaeftsstelle/inde... an organisation of 521,000 members. I'm not so sure
> 2 women run the British section, you know that, should you not say you are an ex BMC person...Andy doesn't say...
What's with the 'Ex'? I'm a current member who goes to area meetings and even got to attend the last National Council meeting.
But you seem to have a problem with the size and expense of the BMC and its 'jobs for the boys' and compare it unfavourably with this - http://www.alpenverein.at/portal/der-verein/ueber-uns/geschaeftsstelle/inde... an organisation of 521,000 members. I'm not so sure
2
In reply to Offwidth:
I'm not sure whether to assume that is a generic vow relating to all posts, or take it as a perverse compliment that you have singled out my posts for an active lack of appreciation....
> I almost broke my vows and liked you for that
I'm not sure whether to assume that is a generic vow relating to all posts, or take it as a perverse compliment that you have singled out my posts for an active lack of appreciation....
3
In reply to sheelba:
Hi sheelba and everyone else,
The email poll was sent to a random sample of 6,000 members rather than the whole membership.
Thank you everyone who responded.
We have closed the poll now and I will post the results and an accompanying article on the BMC website this week.
Simon Lee
(BMC Commercial Partnerships Manager)
> I'm surprised more people don't seem to have seen the email. What they were suggesting was corporate support creating an affinity partnership with a private company.
Hi sheelba and everyone else,
The email poll was sent to a random sample of 6,000 members rather than the whole membership.
Thank you everyone who responded.
We have closed the poll now and I will post the results and an accompanying article on the BMC website this week.
Simon Lee
(BMC Commercial Partnerships Manager)
2
In reply to sheelba:
From Grough: British Mountaineering Council board faces no-confidence motion
https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/02/28/british-mountaineering-council...
From Grough: British Mountaineering Council board faces no-confidence motion
https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/02/28/british-mountaineering-council...
8
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
Probably the last time you enjoyed access at a crag.
> BMC? Not sure when I needed them last. Always somewhat cynical of such orgs.
Probably the last time you enjoyed access at a crag.
14
In reply to sheelba:
On February 11th the BMC National Council supported a subscription increase of £1 for club members and £2.50 for individual members.
Perhaps the BMC should cut its paid staff numbers rather than relying on a membership subs increase
On February 11th the BMC National Council supported a subscription increase of £1 for club members and £2.50 for individual members.
Perhaps the BMC should cut its paid staff numbers rather than relying on a membership subs increase
1
10
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
That's a bit mean. Whatever one's feelings about the BMC, surely they've done an awful lot of good things - courtesy of an eternity of hard work from both paid staff and voluntary helpers.
If we don't have a BMC, watch climbing become shat on and sanitised into another wanky 'sport'.
And when you need to show your insurance certificate and pay to climb at a crag and wear a helmet, well you might find you want 'em then. But that'll be too late.
Mick
> BMC? Not sure when I needed them last. Always somewhat cynical of such orgs.
That's a bit mean. Whatever one's feelings about the BMC, surely they've done an awful lot of good things - courtesy of an eternity of hard work from both paid staff and voluntary helpers.
If we don't have a BMC, watch climbing become shat on and sanitised into another wanky 'sport'.
And when you need to show your insurance certificate and pay to climb at a crag and wear a helmet, well you might find you want 'em then. But that'll be too late.
Mick
14
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
excuse me Jim, I haven't seen any previous comments from you, would you clarify your reasons?
excuse me Jim, I haven't seen any previous comments from you, would you clarify your reasons?
> The BMC are useless as far as I am concerned, jobs for the boys...Austrian Alpine Club is much better, or the French Alpine club.
In reply to Jim 1003:
I think Andy Say was employed by Mountain Training England, not the BMC.
I think Andy Say was employed by Mountain Training England, not the BMC.
> 2 women run the British section, you know that, should you not say you are an ex BMC person...Andy doesn't say...
In reply to ukb shark:
What % of club to individual members were invited to respond? Shame it wasn't the whole membership.
What % of club to individual members were invited to respond? Shame it wasn't the whole membership.
In reply to Foolow Mike:
Given it was a random sample, but pretty large at 6000, i would suggest the ratio of club to individual members would be pretty comparable. And whilst it would always be preferable to invite all 80k plus members, just imagine the shock horror reaction at the cost.......
Given it was a random sample, but pretty large at 6000, i would suggest the ratio of club to individual members would be pretty comparable. And whilst it would always be preferable to invite all 80k plus members, just imagine the shock horror reaction at the cost.......
4
In reply to Foolow Mike:
Hi Mike
It was a random sample to get a cross section of the membership - it didn't exclude club members.
The purpose off the poll was to get a view on how members would feel about affinity partnerships and endorsement to help with decision making. A poll of a suitable sample size seemed a good way to gather evidence rather than trying to second guess how members feel about a specific commercial matter.
Do you think that polls of this sort (to gather evidence) in the future should go to the whole membership? Personally I get annoyed on some sites where I get asked to do a poll on virtually every visit. However, if there is a feeling of being left out or not being consulted by those not polled then there's no reason why we can't email the whole membership going forward.
Simon
Hi Mike
It was a random sample to get a cross section of the membership - it didn't exclude club members.
The purpose off the poll was to get a view on how members would feel about affinity partnerships and endorsement to help with decision making. A poll of a suitable sample size seemed a good way to gather evidence rather than trying to second guess how members feel about a specific commercial matter.
Do you think that polls of this sort (to gather evidence) in the future should go to the whole membership? Personally I get annoyed on some sites where I get asked to do a poll on virtually every visit. However, if there is a feeling of being left out or not being consulted by those not polled then there's no reason why we can't email the whole membership going forward.
Simon
5
In reply to Mick Ward:
Without question the BMC do good work - but that suggestion seems more than a little hysterical. What exactly are you suggesting/thinking would happen in that respect, Mick?
As for climbing being "sanitised into another wanky 'sport'", that's exactly my view of the totally misguided commercial push which has resulted in, for example, climbing being included in the Olympics, and which the BMC has very much been engaged in.
> ... If we don't have a BMC, watch climbing become shat on and sanitised into another wanky 'sport' ...
Without question the BMC do good work - but that suggestion seems more than a little hysterical. What exactly are you suggesting/thinking would happen in that respect, Mick?
As for climbing being "sanitised into another wanky 'sport'", that's exactly my view of the totally misguided commercial push which has resulted in, for example, climbing being included in the Olympics, and which the BMC has very much been engaged in.
5
1
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
Do you honestly believe that you would have the access to the countryside that you currently enjoy without organisations like the ramblers and the Bmc?
> BMC? Not sure when I needed them last. Always somewhat cynical of such orgs.
Do you honestly believe that you would have the access to the countryside that you currently enjoy without organisations like the ramblers and the Bmc?
5
In reply to Steve Woollard:
If they use the money for things like mending their website (Contact link on RAD has been broken since 2011), or responding to emails sent to their access addresses (ignored for years) then I don't mind an increase. But if they waste it on pointless marketing exercises then that's another matter.
> On February 11th the BMC National Council supported a subscription increase of £1 for club members and £2.50 for individual members.Perhaps the BMC should cut its paid staff numbers rather than relying on a membership subs increase
If they use the money for things like mending their website (Contact link on RAD has been broken since 2011), or responding to emails sent to their access addresses (ignored for years) then I don't mind an increase. But if they waste it on pointless marketing exercises then that's another matter.
2
2
In reply to Mick Ward:
What a load of rubbish. The BMC won't be missed...
> That's a bit mean. Whatever one's feelings about the BMC, surely they've done an awful lot of good things - courtesy of an eternity of hard work from both paid staff and voluntary helpers. If we don't have a BMC, watch climbing become shat on and sanitised into another wanky 'sport'.And when you need to show your insurance certificate and pay to climb at a crag and wear a helmet, well you might find you want 'em then. But that'll be too late.Mick
What a load of rubbish. The BMC won't be missed...
2
7
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Err, are you quite sure you're not buying into the hysteria? Our views seem similar.
Like you, I didn't want climbing included in the Olympics (speed climbing, ffs, beloved of totalitarian regimes and no-one else) and I didn't want 'Climb Britian' and I'm leery of adverse commercial interests impacting upon the BMC and ultimately us climbers.
However I was replying to a poster who seemed rudely dismissive of the BMC per se. And that seemed downright unfair in terms of all the good work they've done. Also, if we don't have the BMC as a voice for climbers, we will get 'taken over' by something much, much worse.
And then it's compulsory helmets, compulsory insurance, compulsory (wanky) qualifications, etc, etc.
But perhaps I'm just being hysterical again. (Where have I lost those pesky meds?)
Mick
> Without question the BMC do good work - but that suggestion seems more than a little hysterical.
> As for climbing being "sanitised into another wanky 'sport'", that's exactly my view of the totally misguided commercial push which has resulted in, for example, climbing being included in the Olympics, and which the BMC has very much been engaged in.
Err, are you quite sure you're not buying into the hysteria? Our views seem similar.
Like you, I didn't want climbing included in the Olympics (speed climbing, ffs, beloved of totalitarian regimes and no-one else) and I didn't want 'Climb Britian' and I'm leery of adverse commercial interests impacting upon the BMC and ultimately us climbers.
However I was replying to a poster who seemed rudely dismissive of the BMC per se. And that seemed downright unfair in terms of all the good work they've done. Also, if we don't have the BMC as a voice for climbers, we will get 'taken over' by something much, much worse.
And then it's compulsory helmets, compulsory insurance, compulsory (wanky) qualifications, etc, etc.
But perhaps I'm just being hysterical again. (Where have I lost those pesky meds?)
Mick
3
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
Thus speaketh the man that seems to trust his tea leaves over the BBC for his information.
> What a load of rubbish. The BMC won't be missed...
Thus speaketh the man that seems to trust his tea leaves over the BBC for his information.
4
In reply to Mick Ward:
Strike my use of the word 'hysterical.' Nevertheless, I was replying to your comment that: "If we don't have a BMC, watch climbing become shat on and sanitised into another wanky 'sport'" - and I still wonder what it is that you're suggesting would happen in that respect?
As you've noted yourself, the BMC itself has been complicit - indeed, perhaps more than that - in some of the commercialisation and sanitisation that neither of us like.
Strike my use of the word 'hysterical.' Nevertheless, I was replying to your comment that: "If we don't have a BMC, watch climbing become shat on and sanitised into another wanky 'sport'" - and I still wonder what it is that you're suggesting would happen in that respect?
As you've noted yourself, the BMC itself has been complicit - indeed, perhaps more than that - in some of the commercialisation and sanitisation that neither of us like.
Post edited at 09:52
1
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I suspect we're in almost total agreement. (Whether we're right or wrong is another matter!)
But, to answer your question:
'...it's compulsory helmets, compulsory insurance, compulsory (wanky) qualifications, etc, etc.' (As examples.)
Outside bodies, outside people, don't 'get' climbing. As a quick and dirty litmus test, look at the comments on five Youtube climbing videos of folk doing really good stuff (e.g. Dawn wall). You'll get the odd pertinent comment... and then, oh deary me.
If climbing is governed by bureaucrats who don't 'get' climbing (and who don't want to get it!) imho we will rue the day.
That's all I'm trying to say. And I really want to be proved wrong, not right!
Mick
I suspect we're in almost total agreement. (Whether we're right or wrong is another matter!)
But, to answer your question:
'...it's compulsory helmets, compulsory insurance, compulsory (wanky) qualifications, etc, etc.' (As examples.)
Outside bodies, outside people, don't 'get' climbing. As a quick and dirty litmus test, look at the comments on five Youtube climbing videos of folk doing really good stuff (e.g. Dawn wall). You'll get the odd pertinent comment... and then, oh deary me.
If climbing is governed by bureaucrats who don't 'get' climbing (and who don't want to get it!) imho we will rue the day.
That's all I'm trying to say. And I really want to be proved wrong, not right!
Mick
3
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Hi Simon, I don't work in the access team but can pass on any issues for them to fix.
I've got the latest version of the RAD App on my phone and I don't see any contact links on it. Can you link or point the broken one out for me, which Ican then get fixed?
In the past I've successfully contacted local access reps using this: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/list-of-bmc-access-reps
Being volunteers, they are sometimes unavailable though.
In addition, on the BMC website Access homepage https://www.thebmc.co.uk/cats/all/access_conservation , if you look in the people section, the links to the Officers (staff) are all up-to-date. with emails and phone numbers. Hope that helps.
> If they use the money for things like mending their website (Contact link on RAD has been broken since 2011), or responding to emails sent to their access addresses (ignored for years) then I don't mind an increase. But if they waste it on pointless marketing exercises then that's another matter.
Hi Simon, I don't work in the access team but can pass on any issues for them to fix.
I've got the latest version of the RAD App on my phone and I don't see any contact links on it. Can you link or point the broken one out for me, which Ican then get fixed?
In the past I've successfully contacted local access reps using this: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/list-of-bmc-access-reps
Being volunteers, they are sometimes unavailable though.
In addition, on the BMC website Access homepage https://www.thebmc.co.uk/cats/all/access_conservation , if you look in the people section, the links to the Officers (staff) are all up-to-date. with emails and phone numbers. Hope that helps.
2
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
So bugger off. I'm guessing you're not a member?
The question is not 'what do I get out of it' but 'what can I give to it' I'd have thought.
> BMC? Not sure when I needed them last. Always somewhat cynical of such orgs.
So bugger off. I'm guessing you're not a member?
The question is not 'what do I get out of it' but 'what can I give to it' I'd have thought.
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
Fair enough, but I completely disagree with you. Pretty much every right we take for granted has been fought for or paid for.
Looking at problems with land access in other countries e.g. Republic of Ireland or river access in the UK, I don't think any of our access has been freely given
> Yes I do.
Fair enough, but I completely disagree with you. Pretty much every right we take for granted has been fought for or paid for.
Looking at problems with land access in other countries e.g. Republic of Ireland or river access in the UK, I don't think any of our access has been freely given
2
In reply to ukb shark:
Sorry. I haven't got around to doing the article so instead here is the text of the original poll and the results:
Partnerships and the BMC
The BMC is currently looking at new ways to extend our partnerships, and we’d value your opinion to help decide the way forward.
You might be aware that the BMC is facing a 40% cut in funding from Sport England, leading to a potential £120,000 loss this year. This will affect our ability to deliver our vital work on access, conservation, youth and development, therefore we are evaluating options to increase our revenue by establishing new affinity partnerships.
Currently we have a variety of commercial partnerships with outdoor companies who sponsor individual events, such as the Winter Lecture Series (Lowe Alpine) the Alpine Lecture Series (Berghaus) and the Climbing Masterclasses (DMM). Companies also sponsor BMC TV films, advertise in Summit magazine and support campaigns such as Mend Our Mountains. They understand and support what we do and we, in return, are advertising their brands and products.
We are looking to build on this and significantly improve our revenue by entering into new affinity partnerships. Many not-for-profit and membership organisations already adopt this approach, raising significant money. The Ramblers Association and Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme all have affinity partnerships; even the Scout Association has been doing it for ten years.
The main difference with an affinity partnership compared to current commercial partnerships is that the BMC would recommend a company or brand as a “Partner of Choice”. In return, an affinity partner supports us financially and would proactively promote the BMC, our services and our membership to their customers. It’s a win-win way of working.
Naturally, we would only endorse an organisation or brand that we believe has a great reputation for its products and service, and that we believed was in our members’ benefit.
However, as this is a new area for us we’d value your opinion.
Question: Are you in favour of the BMC developing affinity partnerships?
In favour: 72.15%
Neutral: 23.59%
Opposed: 4.26%
Total respondents =1,174
If anyone would like to reach me regarding the above drop me an email: simon@thebmc.co.uk
Thanks again everyone who participated
> I will post the results and an accompanying article on the BMC website this week.Simon Lee (BMC Commercial Partnerships Manager)
Sorry. I haven't got around to doing the article so instead here is the text of the original poll and the results:
Partnerships and the BMC
The BMC is currently looking at new ways to extend our partnerships, and we’d value your opinion to help decide the way forward.
You might be aware that the BMC is facing a 40% cut in funding from Sport England, leading to a potential £120,000 loss this year. This will affect our ability to deliver our vital work on access, conservation, youth and development, therefore we are evaluating options to increase our revenue by establishing new affinity partnerships.
Currently we have a variety of commercial partnerships with outdoor companies who sponsor individual events, such as the Winter Lecture Series (Lowe Alpine) the Alpine Lecture Series (Berghaus) and the Climbing Masterclasses (DMM). Companies also sponsor BMC TV films, advertise in Summit magazine and support campaigns such as Mend Our Mountains. They understand and support what we do and we, in return, are advertising their brands and products.
We are looking to build on this and significantly improve our revenue by entering into new affinity partnerships. Many not-for-profit and membership organisations already adopt this approach, raising significant money. The Ramblers Association and Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme all have affinity partnerships; even the Scout Association has been doing it for ten years.
The main difference with an affinity partnership compared to current commercial partnerships is that the BMC would recommend a company or brand as a “Partner of Choice”. In return, an affinity partner supports us financially and would proactively promote the BMC, our services and our membership to their customers. It’s a win-win way of working.
Naturally, we would only endorse an organisation or brand that we believe has a great reputation for its products and service, and that we believed was in our members’ benefit.
However, as this is a new area for us we’d value your opinion.
Question: Are you in favour of the BMC developing affinity partnerships?
In favour: 72.15%
Neutral: 23.59%
Opposed: 4.26%
Total respondents =1,174
If anyone would like to reach me regarding the above drop me an email: simon@thebmc.co.uk
Thanks again everyone who participated
2
1
In reply to ukb shark:
> BMC is facing a 40% cut in funding from Sport England, leading to a potential £120,000 loss this year
You meant eh BMC could lose funding to that amount or the BMC could face a shortfall in its accounts for this year? If the latter how come unless this is a retrospective cut by Sport England. Also, I presume the sport England money is specific purposes so what is it intended to cover?In reply to Tyler:
That is the current forecast shortfall forecast for 2017. I only know the headline figure, not how it is made up or on what assumptions. Our accounting year is a calendar year.
As I understand it the new round of funding starts from April. The amount of funding and how it is allocated hasn't been finally confirmed yet. There have been delays.
> You meant eh BMC could lose funding to that amount or the BMC could face a shortfall in its accounts for this year? If the latter how come unless this is a retrospective cut by Sport England. Also, I presume the sport England money is specific purposes so what is it intended to cover?
That is the current forecast shortfall forecast for 2017. I only know the headline figure, not how it is made up or on what assumptions. Our accounting year is a calendar year.
As I understand it the new round of funding starts from April. The amount of funding and how it is allocated hasn't been finally confirmed yet. There have been delays.
In reply to ukb shark:
It may be helpful to think more deeply about your survey design in future.
youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&
It may be helpful to think more deeply about your survey design in future.
youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&
In reply to sheelba:
To bring things up to date I have written a paper expanding on the points in the text of the questionnaire (text is 5 posts up this thread). This paper has been forwarded to the local areas (which are holding upcoming meetings) for distribution. It will at some point be added as a document alongside the minutes etc and other info on the BMC Community pages in your Area Meeting notice.
I intend going to all but one of the upcoming meetings prior to the AGM weekend to discuss the topic. I was at the South West Area Meet on Saturday and am going to NW Area (Mon 3rd), Peak Area (Weds 5th), North Wales Area (Mon 10th), London (Weds 12th) and South Wales (Thurs 13th). The topic will be on the next National Council agenda on Sunday 23rd April, the day after the AGM.
Thank you James Mann and Mark Kemball for welcoming me to the South West meet. There was a good discussion on affinity partnerships and commercial endorsement and the key takeaway point for me was to ensure that any potential sponsor was made aware that they would not be in a position to have any influence on policy.
There was then a vote on whether the Area supported the pursuit of affinity partnerships and the principle of commercial endorsement which was approved with the caveat that sponsors do not influence BMC policy.
To bring things up to date I have written a paper expanding on the points in the text of the questionnaire (text is 5 posts up this thread). This paper has been forwarded to the local areas (which are holding upcoming meetings) for distribution. It will at some point be added as a document alongside the minutes etc and other info on the BMC Community pages in your Area Meeting notice.
I intend going to all but one of the upcoming meetings prior to the AGM weekend to discuss the topic. I was at the South West Area Meet on Saturday and am going to NW Area (Mon 3rd), Peak Area (Weds 5th), North Wales Area (Mon 10th), London (Weds 12th) and South Wales (Thurs 13th). The topic will be on the next National Council agenda on Sunday 23rd April, the day after the AGM.
Thank you James Mann and Mark Kemball for welcoming me to the South West meet. There was a good discussion on affinity partnerships and commercial endorsement and the key takeaway point for me was to ensure that any potential sponsor was made aware that they would not be in a position to have any influence on policy.
There was then a vote on whether the Area supported the pursuit of affinity partnerships and the principle of commercial endorsement which was approved with the caveat that sponsors do not influence BMC policy.
Post edited at 11:34
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...