UKH

We have just received an email from the BMC explaining that their funding in 2017/18 is likely to be cut by Sport England and so that on "1st September we will be launching our first strategic partnership with a national outdoor retailer".

We haven't see this mentioned anywhere else and they don't say who the retailer is.

They are going to continue letting us give 10% off to BMC members, which is jolly kind of them!

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

So. Cotswold or Go Outdoors? Arent really any others left. Apart from blacks.

In reply to toad:
Go Outdoors are now owned by JD Sports and Cotswold owned by AS Adventure Group who also own Snow & Rock.

In reply to toad:

Well, Blacks and Go Outdoors are all owned by JD Sports now (as are Tisos and George Fisher and Ultimate Outdoors) so my money would be on JD over Cotswold, unless Mike Ashley has bought the brand

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

I wonder what form this strategic partnership will take? I suspect us bmc members can look forward to being subjected to yet more advertising.

Is this sort of comercial tie in for the BMC a new thing or has they had these sort of relationships in the past? The fact they describe it as the first strategic partnership would suggest it's a new thing, and not the last.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Please not Go Outdoors! No disrespect but quite how they won TGO online retailer last year is beyond me. At least Cotswold (in my local store at least) are friendly, knowledgeable, well trained and outdoors people!! On another note, always had great service at Needle Sports - but must be a bit concerning hearing this kind of news.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Perhaps the bmc news a hard look at what it does, why and what it costs. Needing to partner up with private corporation to continue with its current model doesn't seem quite right.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Does this mean shark got a bite? We're gonna need a bigger boat!

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Hi Stephen. This was discussed and voted on in all of the BMC area meetings in the spring. I think maybe some people missed it as it was happening at the same time as the motion of no confidence stuff.

The BMC guys couldn't have been more open about the partnership plans and what it meant.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Hopefully Alpinetrek.co.uk for when the pound eventually? rallies against the euro.

In reply to summo:


The BMC is currently undergoing a significant independent organisational review. It is taking a hard look at itself, what it does and how it operates and is governed. Hopefully you gave us your views in the member survey and we can take those views into account whilst we're forming recommendations over the coming months.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


Wonder if the rejection of the Climb Britain re-brand is a factor?

In reply to TXG:



Are you sure, it doesn't seem to have made it onto either the agenda or the minutes of the Midlands meeting?

In reply to JR:

I did, can't remember but were the views on corporate sponsorship of a sport's representative body sought?

Imagine a scenario; there is a nice crag on private land, access is threatened somehow, only the land is owned by a good friend of the CEO who is funding the bmc. Is the bmc now representing the climbers or it's paymaster? An extreme example, but I hope you grasp my point.

In reply to summo:

Yes, a question about future funding and sponsor relationships was in the ORG survey. The survey has now closed and we're awaiting the draft report. The results will be published in due course.

To be clear, however, this commercial relationship was in discussion at the inception of the ORG. Of course, the BMC needs to continue its day to day operations and the strategy agreed through the current democratic structure, whilst the ORG forms its recommendations.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


I doubt it.

General Sports England cuts were known to be coming at the start of the re-branding process, which was one of the reasons *for* it.

However, I have the impression that the attempted motion of no confidence did cause significant damage to the BMC's relationship with Sports England and may have resulted in further loss of grants on top of that -- maybe someone can confirm/deny on this front?

So in that sense, the fact that some people didn't think the climb-down on the re-brand was enough and decided to try to destroy the BMC as revenge -- that may have been a factor, yes.

In reply to slab_happy:

Thanks.


Not sure I understand what you're saying. The Sport England cuts were general as in not specific to BMC funding? They paid for a re-brand of the BMC because they were cutting funding to the BMC?


I suppose if there were "further loss of grants" then that could be due to the re-brand?

In reply to summo:


Was discussed at the peak area meeting in April, and I'm pretty sure Simon Lee said he was going to visit every area will his proposal. Admittedly at that meeting the AGM shenanigans dominated the evening, but at least it meant a bumper crowd. Quite a few people expressed reservations, but the majority were in favour of him proceeding

In reply to JR:

I hope this will be an improvement on the rebranding fiasco

Hi - Simon Lee, BMC Commercial Partnerships Manager here.

At the beginning of July we published an article on the website which explains the background to commercial partnerships, the consultation process we went through with the membership, how a strategic partnership would work and inviting enquiries.

www.thebmc.co.uk/why-the-bmc-needs-commercial-partnerships

The article attracted a response from a number of outdoor industry organisations looking to partner with us and on the 1st September we will be launching our first strategic partnership with a national outdoor retailer.

Yesterday I emailed those retailers who we advertise on the website as offering a discount to members, including Mr Reid at Needlesport, to provide prior notice of the launch.

Stay tuned to the BMC website and member emails for further details....

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Yes and yes, as I understand it.

Sports England indicated in advance that they'd be progressively cutting grants across a wide range of sports (presumably because we live in Austerity Britain and nobody has any money for anything).

The grant to explore the re-branding seems to have been made partly on the basis that re-branding would potentially enable the BMC to engage with more climbers and hillwalkers, expand its membership, and thus be less dependent on Sports England funding.

From what I know of how grant-making bodies function, this isn't uncommon as a strategy: you want to try to "wean" an organization off depending on you for such a large amount of their funding, so you might make a (relatively) small grant for something like this which could potentially help them raise more income from other sources.


N.B. I don't have insider knowledge here; I'm sure people who do will correct me if neeed.

However, the impression I have is that the further loss of grants was directly due to the MONC, because -- as I pointed out ad nauseam on UKC at the time -- a Motion of No Confidence aimed at the entire executive of an organization is going to be percieved by other bodies as a signal of massive rot (and also, of course, could have resulted in the collapse of the BMC if it had passed; it's pretty wasteful to make a grant if the organization's not in existence four months later). It makes an organization look *toxic*.


Okay, maybe this isn't what you intend here, but you're slightly giving the impression that you're *hopeful* that the loss of grants might somehow be the BMC being "punished" for the attempted re-brand.

In reply to slab_happy:


I think the thought might occur to a lot of people, there is an obvious connection, but that doesn't mean it's true does it? I wouldn't even claim I have "the impression", I'll leave that to others, I would withhold judgement without evidence.

In reply to summo:

I kind of agree with the thought that the BMC - our BMC - shouldn't be in bed with any specific retailer at all. Taking the public shilling is always an desirable course in the long run I feel. Shouldn't this be put to a membership vote?

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

'You will probably receive emails from us with discounts, offers and product information from our Partners which we hope you will support. The logos of any partners may feature on the BMC website and printed literature"

No thank you. I hate sponsorship deals. Hey BMC; be poor and proud and independent

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

BMC has had sponsorship deals for years. The Winter Lectures etc have been sponsored by the likes of Berghaus, Cotswold etc.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:
The BMC has to make ends meet somehow and entering a partnership with a large outdoors retailer isn't such a bad idea. It would be nice if the BMC had a partnership with small independent retailers but I'd have thought it would be next to impossible to hammer out a deal with lots of counterparties and the small retailers probably don't have the money anyway.

You can always withdraw the 10% discount and see if you end up losing customers or increasing your profits...

Anyway, I don't buy anything from Needle Sports any more because of your views on Brexit and immigration as previously aired on this forum. Got to stand by my principles and that means not giving money to people I don't agree with.

I don't generally buy stuff from Go Outdoors either, if that makes you feel better...

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:
Good work, well done.

In reply to Misha:

Have a read up on the demise of mountain spirit in Aviemore, your opinion of the bmc teaming up with national chains might change.

If the bmc can promote courses, access, comps etc.. I think it should also put the work in to support the relatively few remaining good quality independent retailers left in the UK. It will be a sad day when all the UKs kit is effectively from two giant companies.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

They are one offs and clear. This "strategic" thing suggests something more and if it's a big chain owned by an even bigger setup, you wonder where the power will lie. Will the BMC be representing climbers, or the comercial interests of one company.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:



I wont quit my membership, but i will probably unsubscribe if i start receiving excessive marketing emails

In reply to slab_happy:


People some of whom are still prominently advertising their own business interests at the top of the ukc Forums page?

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:




I suspect this decision may have a greater impact on businesses such as yours Stephen, than the average BMC membership?

The BMC need to either try and plug the gap left by the reduction in funding from Sport England, or reduce the scale of their operations.

That is unfortunately the harsh financial reality.

So having presumably decided to try and maintain the scale of their operations, they have two choices?

Either increase membership fees (possibly quite substantially) or seek a commercial partnership.

They seem to have chosen the latter course, and only time will tell whether or not that turns into a Pandoras Box?

But possibly, until both the details of who, and how this deal is structured, it might be best to reserve judgement, at least in the short term.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:


At the moment decisions like this are taken by the national council, usually after taking soundings at area meetings. I had a hand in setting up that system, spent 5 years on the NC, been to numerous area meetings over that last 15 years, and I stand by it.

If, as some demand, we put every decision to an internet vote, we would remove the purpose of the national council and undermine much of point behind area meetings. People are often drawn to area meetings by these headline grabbing issues and then realise there is far more going on. Often they'll then get involved as volunteers. And why would anyone give up a weekend of there time to go to NC meetings, which are often tedious in the extreme, if it is merely a talking shop.

Most importantly, at both meetings, the range of experiences and opinions is usually far wider than you get on Internet forums. Quite often you'll get to hear stuff which, for various reasons, won't get shared on the internet

Yes I can understand this can be frustrating if it's difficult to get to an area meeting, and presumably have never been to a NC meeting. But you risk destroying an essential cornerstone of the BMC

In reply to Misha:


For information, Go Outdoors may have grown into a large chain, and has then been acquired by a bigger fish, but it still remains close to it's Sheffield roots. This year has seen the opening of the second MTB trail at Lady Cannings (outskirts of Sheffield) funded by GO. Certainly proved pretty popular.

In reply to summo:

If they're good enough it won't be. In all honesty why should the BMC support shops that may or may not be good, a matter of personal opinion. A totally ad hoc criteria for what purpose?

In reply to wbo:


Yes. I simply don't buy this sentimentality about "independent retailers" (whatever that might actually mean). Manufacturers make kit. I buy and use it. Whatever middleman is most efficient, convenient and economical in getting the right kit to me is fine as far as I am concerned.

Having said that, I'm not entirely happy about the BMC being in the pocket of any commercial operation, however small or big.

In reply to summo:
I'm aware of that. At the end of the day, it's us as the consumers who make purchasing decisions and we don't have to shop with Cotswold or whoever the BMC are teaming up with.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:
A Tie-up has been talked about for several months at BMC meetings. Simon Lee was appointed to find this kind of input to secure the financial future of the BMC. If the BMC try to increase subscriptions to cover the shortfall in revenue (exacerbated by the ridiculous MONC and possibly the vote to keep the existing name!) from the sports council there would, no doubt, be an outcry, and the reduction in membership and hence the actions of the BMC on behalf of the outdoor community!

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

I do hope this works out, I was aware that the BMC were investigating a link up with a commercial partner, It being discussed at an area meeting at the height the 'motion commotion'. Our local response was to agree to the exploration of (a) commercial partnership (s), an exploration in principle....... It seems to have progressed very rapidly. I hope the necessary due diligence has been done and we are not going to be embarrassed by an unsavory partner. Given it seems to be a done deal, made with no reference to the membership..... If it's not clean as a whistle, then I predict the shit will undoubtedly hit the fan..........

Fingers crossed then.

Steve

In reply to Misha:



delightful

In reply to wbo:


So why promote a massive chain?

It's not a matter of an independent being good enough. When a national chain stocks brand X in clothing or equipment, they often demand exclusivity rights, so the small shop doesn't get a look in, it's an uneven playing field.

In reply to Misha:


When all the other shops are closed you won't have a choice where you shop.

In reply to summo:


When does an independent become a massive chain? Alpkit have two shops now. The cheek! Perhaps we should impose some sort of upper limit?

Good for you if you have a successful business in this country, but God help you if you become *too* successful.

In reply to summo:


Can you give an example of where this has happened? I don't know of any brands that are unique to the major chains, and certainly not the likes of Mountain Equipment, DMM, Arcteryx etc.

In reply to planetmarshall:

It's a pretty difficult line to tread, GO Outdoors was once just CCC in Sheffield I think.

The "massive chain" change is probably when they move away from what they were good at. Independents often (though not always) are staffed by informed enthusiasts and they stock the kind of specialist items that have no margin and are low turn over that the big chains wouldn't as they know there is no money to be made from them.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Google up on mountain spirit in Aviemore, or ring him. You'll get detailed account of why they had to sell more diverse brands because the big company were selling to the chains with exclusivity rights.

In reply to summo:



I don't quite understand, with regards to the BMC forming an official partnership with a retail outlet, why the size of that retail outlet matters from an 'ethical' perspective.

Sure a big retail chain has more financial clout within the industry than a small independent, but any friction or conflict of interests created for the BMC, is a risk with any 'official' commercial partnership undertaking.

And obviously, whoever the commercial partner is, they are getting involved primarily for commercial benefit, not an altruistic gesture - and that is the case irrespective of the size of the retailer.

I'm pretty sure Stephen Reid and Needle Sports, would not provide a source of considerable financial support to the BMC (the 10% discount to BMC members is given to stimulate increased sales from a captive segment - eg BMC members ) without there being a commercial advantage to doing so.

That's how business works, whether you're a small independent or a large chain.

Also, I completely understand from the BMC's perspective, that if you're going to form a commercial partnership, you want to form one with a business which has the right level of financial resource.

I'm wondering whether any objections to the partner chain being someone like GO Outdoors, is nothing to do with size, but more a case of snobbery - bumblies and dog walker's shop there, not proper climbers.

Well I've news for you all, for every one item the likes of Arcteryx, ME, MH etc sell to a 'proper' climber, they sell five to trendy, fashion conscious bumblies and dog walkers.

In reply to Goucho:



Five? Might be nearer fifty.

In reply to Rick Graham:


You might be right Rick.

I see more Arcteryx, ME, and Rab stuff down where I live in Sandbanks, than I ever see in mountain areas

In reply to Goucho:




Giving that the BMC is currently conducting a review of both how it's structured, and what its emphases should be, your 'scale of their operations' comment is pertinent. Ideally, perhaps, thoughts of commercial tie-ups might have been put on the back burner until the results of the review had been both published and voted on.

(I realise that the timescales here have been dictated to a degree by other events; so that's an observation rather than a criticism.)

In reply to summo:

I think you will also find it works the other way around. Some brands will not sell to the multiples because the 'independents' want 'exclusivity'.

In reply to galpinos:


And Cotswold was "Cotswold Camping" in South Cerney. Everything needs to start somewhere. Go Outdoors was still family owned until very recently.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Personally I don't feel any snobbery towards Go Outdoors or anyone else and have used their stores as have friends & family - my reasons are the ones I described earlier and don't know if that's a fit for the BMC. But only they can decide so I'll leave the decision to the BMC and continue to support them and varied outdoor retailers!

In reply to lucozade:


But we are the BMC.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

I don't need a BMC. Regardless of how this plays out we will all continue climbing.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


Maybe.

But I bet crag and mountain access, safety of climbing gear, traditional cliffs grid bolted, and climbing wall quality won't be quite the same.

In reply to lucozade:



Go Outdoors are total scam artists and I'm proud to say I haven't shopped there for years.

I bought something there once and when I got to the tills I was told the price was only valid if I had a loyalty card. When I asked for one I was told it would cost £5 - so the combined cost was even higher!

Another time I didn't even go there, just parked in their car park for few hours, which was shared by the local climbing wall. They put a note on my windscreen saying I owed them £90 for parking!!! So about £30 per hour! Needless to say I ignored it. A few weeks later they sent someone round my house, knocking on the door, to try to get the money off me. Presumably some people are intimidated and fall for that kind of sh*t and pay up. Pretty outrageous.

Another very weird thing about them is that you're not allowed to wear hats in their store. But the thing is they're not actually against hats - they actually sell them. Saw a guy kicked out once for wearing a hat.

In reply to Rick Graham:

Yes true, all of us who are members - as members. I filled in the survey and was as helpful as I could be

In reply to stp:


Nothing you've written proves your point about them being scam artists. So their discount card costs a fiver? Costco want £30 for theirs and that's even more of a bargain than GO's card. I'm not really sure how that's at all a scam.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
I have shopped at GO ever since they started, buying base layers, fleeces cheap boots & sandals all at good prices. My loyalty card has paid for itself every year so at £5 I think it is OK. I wear a flat cap (That's got my demographic sorted!) and have never been asked to take it off. I also support my local retailer Tisos from whom I get good service and buy my technical stuff there. I note that they have been swallowed by JD but not yet noticed a difference.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

The price on the product was a false price. I couldn't possibly buy it for that price. I either had to pay more because no loyalty card (which it didn't mention on the product) or pay for a loyalty card too which added up to an even higher price.

I'm pretty sure there's a law against that and I should have called them on it and insisted on the advertised price but it was only a few pounds extra and I was in a hurry at the time so just paid up. I definitely felt I'd been had there though.

Also charging £90 for 3 hours parking is utterly ridiculous. They are essentially preying on gullible types who pay up because they are intimidated into believing they have to. Perhaps that's more correctly called a con rather than a scam. Call it what you want, they're not a nice company.

In reply to summo:


My point is people choose where to shop and the BMC's partnership will probably have minimal effect on that. A lot of people just go for the cheapest online deal. Others make use of the Go Outdoors price match promise because they don't have a lot of money to spend on kit. Many places already don't have independent shops any more, for example as far as I know there's only one independent in the whole of the West Midlands and even that is more of a ski shop (there's also Rock & Run but that's a small chain, or does it count as an independent?).

In reply to stp:

It wasn't a false price, you simply didn't pay attention to the words that clearly say that there are 2 prices, one with and one without the loyalty card. Time to go to specsavers.

As for the parking thing, it seems odd that someone would actually come to your house. Usually they send a silly letter. Was it a GO person who came a-knocking?

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:
I wonder how many of us rely on the BMC 10% discount. I've never paid full price for anything but rather wait for the deals and pay much less than 70% of the usual price. Knowing where the factory outlets and regular clearouts are can save you much more money.
This year my wife cancelled her BMC membership, we just don't need it or feel the benefits anymore. Everything has its time.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Oh really? You were there were you and know exactly what item I was talking about? Sorry but you've just made all of that up, presumably to justify your loyalty to Go Outdoors.



I agree it was odd which is why I brought it up in relation to that company. I didn't actually answer the door but they stuffed something through the door regarding the money they were trying to get off me. I don't remember the details, just shoved it in the bin.

In reply to Rick Graham:

I don't think the BMC has much to do with climbing wall quality. They might have done 15-20 years ago but certainly not anymore. And PPE takes care of gear.

You are totally correct about access though

In reply to Graeme Alderson:



Ken Wilson chairing the BMC working party kicked CW development in the right direction for climbers in the mid 80's.
Otherwise it could be argued that the state of the CW industry in this country would be very different now. RIP.

You are correct though in that the industry fends for itself now.
When are you opening that crazy climb?

The BMC has had quite an influence on how PPE regulation affects climbers.

In reply to stp:


GO labels (on every product) explicitly tell you that there are two prices, therefore you didn't read the label. I appreciate it's embarassing to realise that after your initial post, but that's how it is.

Specsavers, seriously.

In reply to stp:


I couldn't quite work out whether this was a joke or not.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I can't help but wonder if you make habit of invalidating other people's experiences and if you have any idea of just how infuriating that is. You might be able to get away with it in real life, perhaps you're the sort of person who raises their voice, but it doesn't really work in written communication.

The fact that you believe because your experience is different to mine I must have made a mistake is both narrow minded and arrogant.

In reply to planetmarshall:

No it's not a joke. It totally true. I was gobsmacked. I've never seen it before or since. I overheard the conversation between the customer and the staff. The guy refused to take off his hat and had to leave the store.

In reply to Misha:
You pay tax to the government don't you? Agree with everything it does? Do you buy bus tickets? Train tickets? Petrol? Agree with things those suppliers do?

I think your comment was maybe gratuitous and unwanted and possibly as a far as standing by your principles is concerned, your principles may well get bent in terms of paying tax to a government set on Brexit. It's a hard life being principled

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

After their recent difficulties trying to rush through an ill thought out rebranding exercise I think members should be starting to ask if the BMC is suffering from a sustained deficit of leadership and purpose.

As an organisation it was designed to serve the needs of its members and represent their interests without fear or favour. Something that you can do if the balance of your income is based on membership fees and you're not in thrall to government grants and funds from exclusive sponsors.

Having accepted significant sums from central government through Sport England and expanded their infrastructure and cost base accordingly, it now seems like they may be entering into commercial agreements simply to maintain the scale of that infrastructure. I suspect some members already felt that the money provided by Sport England had a significant and distorting impact on the focus of the organisation. It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the organisation may be similarly influenced by the commercial priorities and interests of a particularly significant commercial sponsor; as opposed to the interests and views of their members.

Having a broad base of commercial partners none of whom have so much influence or importance that you can't afford to lose them, seems to be a much more strategically sound approach. And if necessary altering the scale of the organisation to adjust to life without the largesse of sport England.

I think there's also an ethical dimension to "dropping" smaller established partners in favour of one big commercial partner offering a "quick fix" to the loss of Sport England cash. It all feels very short sighted.....again.

In reply to stp:


This could be because of a problem they had a few years back with a couple of gangs called the Peaky Blaggers and the Trilby Theivers.

They used to go into the stores wearing oversized flat caps and trilby's, and steal gear by hiding it under their hats.

So rather than penalise whippet owners and middle aged bankers, they put in place a blanket ban on the wearing of hats in their stores.

On a more serious note, their loyalty card has been free for a while - in exchange for your details for marketing purposes - and their car parks, as I understand via one if their senior regional managers, are in fact owned by the varying councils, who then sub contract the running and administration of them, including penalty charges.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:


Well Misha, and the rest of us, are legally obliged to pay taxes to the government, whether we approve of their decisions or not, so I'm not sure that analogy holds.

In reply to alastairmac:


Since the BMC hasn't had any previous "strategic partnerships" of the sort being discussed here, I'm not sure what you mean. Who is being dropped?

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

I'm sure what my opinion on this "strategic partnership" is, so I'm not going to comment.

However, the way you have gone about this is, in my opinion, very poor indeed.

You sent a poll to selected members saying:


The result of this poll was presented as members being overwhelmingly in support of the BMC's proposal - unsurprising, given the gushing emotional language leading up to the question. This was then presented to members at local area meetings - although it doesn't appear on agendas or minutes of at least my local area and apparently others also. There has been many criticisms of the local area meeting process cutting out large numbers of BMC members who can't get to them, so it's rather irresponsible for an item like this not to be on agendas so members don't know it's important to turn up to make their views heard.

In the background of an ongoing governance review due to concerns about members not being listened to, and the rebranding fiasco, surely the BMC should have tried a bit harder than this to ensure their actions reflect the views of their members?

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


Presumably you don't climb at Tremadog, Croookrise, Craig y Longridge, Harrison's, Wilton, or any of the crags where the BMC has played a role in negotiating access?

In reply to stp:

Were you wearing the "hat" in your profile pic?

In reply to stp:


I make a habit of pointing out the obvious - that GO always show both prices and you missed that because you didn't have your readers on. The discount card thing isn't a scam, it's common practice in retail and I think it's entirely reasonable.

I'm sure it's very infuriating to have your mistake pointed out to you after you called it a scam but that's your business. If you'd raised this at the time with the staff, you'd have been told the same thing.

At least this is a diversion from the rising tide of hysteria about this strategic partnership. Hopefully the BMC will get on with it and not wilt to pressure from all those going out of their way to be offended.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Your arrogance is amazing.

In reply to MG:

LOL. No. I wish. I don't think they'd have been so keen on that. Though I could have claimed that technically it's not a hat.

In reply to Goucho:

Interesting. I never found out about the hat thing but my best guess was it was to do with CCTV and being able to capture people's faces in case of shoplifting perhaps. Seemed the completely wrong way to go about it in my view. While most people might not mind too much, some wear hats to hide baldness, birth marks, alopecia or just having a bad hair day.

Didn't know the loyalty card was free now. Haven't been there for years. I tend to go to Decathlon now which have a loyalty card scheme but are much less aggressive about it, leaving the customer free to decide if they want to use it or not. I don't have any loyalty cards with any stores.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:
There's a difference between paying tax (which is a legal requirement and pays for many good things done by people who have nothing to do with the government, e.g. the NHS staff) and buying outdoor gear from a small independent shop (where the profits go directly to the owner whose views I don't agree with and where I can just as easily get gear from another small independent shop or wherever else happens to have what I need).

In reply to alastairmac:
I doubt the sponsorship income will be so significant as to alter the direction of the BMC. Also they said this is the first partnership, implying there will be others - hence achieving the 'diversification' which you seek.

In reply to Misha:

+1 on the brexit boycott. Taking my money elsewhere.

In reply to Misha:

Hopefully.

It is rather amazing that after the Climb Britain fiasco, and the MONC, they do this after a loaded question on a survey and discussion at a subset of area meetings. Almost like they want another MONC!!

In reply to stp:
You should try the Go outdoors price match. See what Decathlon are selling it for show that to the staff at GO and get 10% cheaper.

In reply to MG:
I suspect it's a storm in a teacup. Let's wait to see the details but it will be some kind of partnership with Cotswold, Rab and Berghaus for example. Discounts for BMC members perhaps and sponsorship of various events with some free gear in exchange for giving some prominence to their logos. It's not like the BMC is now going to grid bolt Stanage or tarmac Crib Goch.

On a practical point, if every significant decision had to go through local area meetings etc, nothing would ever get done and even then some people won't be happy.

In reply to Misha:


I'm gonna buy extra stuff from Needlesports just to spite you.

In reply to stp:

The edge would have given you a ticket to put in your windscreen to allow you to park free. It was on a sign behind the counter!
The price tags in GO always have two prices, stating that you get the lower price if you have a card. Reading the price tags is not that difficult. Their advertising has the same system.
Go was CCC and almost went bankrupt, but a manager buyout kept them afloat and the astute new owner set about becoming successful with a formula that worked. Apparently in the UK success is a dirty word!

In reply to Rick Graham:


Rubbish. The BMC produced a handbook, had working parties and a couple of conferences; but offered little real guidance. Once the first few commercial Walls got going any influence slipped away. I well remember Ken arguing that there should be no registration documentation or restrictions on how a person used a wall. His view being that visiting a wall should be unrestricted; as it was just practice for climbing outdoors. Pointing out that it wasn't him who was going to get sued was deemed irrelevent. A BMC support signature on a Lottery Bid was about as far as their involvement went.

In reply to slab_happy:

Once upon a time they did these things.............

In reply to slab_happy:


It's not a matter of negotiating access, they bought them!!

A fact which should be publicised more and it might increase membership, preventing the need for external funds.

Tremadog was one of the first places to open during foot and mouth, when specific ab points were out put in the place and a additional fence at the top was added to separate stock and people.

In reply to summo:


What, did Savvas finally make it out to a crag?

In reply to summo:


"or any of the crags where the BMC has played a role in negotiating access" was meant to be *in addition* to the named ones they actually bought or manage -- sorry if that was unclear.


Agreed, fervently!

But "raising awareness of the BMC’s work and membership" is ... one of the things the BMC was using Sport England grants to do (it's mentioned on the BMC page about the grants they were awarded in 2009, which seems to be down at present).

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


They bought Crookrise in March 2017.

They still own and manage all the named crags. They are trying to negotiate access or handling ongoing access issues at a wide range of other crags.

("But *apart* from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?")

In reply to Chris_Mellor:


But keep having the financial resources to buy and manage crags and lobby for access rights! But don't raise membership fees!

I'm sure plenty of people have ideas on how the BMC could cut costs -- it's just that they almost all seem to amount to "Stop supporting types of climbing/hillwalking that I personally am not interested in".

Honestly, with all due respect to shark: I feel pretty iffy about "strategic partnerships" with commercial organizations and the ways they could go wrong; at best, I'm probably going to feel "this is tolerable and not too annoying".

But there doesn't appear to be any other obvious way to make ends meet and have the BMC still keep doing everything that's expected of it.

Unless people are willing to pay higher membership fees. Which, it appears, they're not.

In reply to Removed User:

I disagree.

Ken was a big mover behind the development of the Altringham wall in the early 80's.
Don Robinson and Streaky were trying in the right direction for climbers at the time but this was when the BMC first got involved IIRC.
The first commercial wall was the Foundry in 1991. It could be argued that the private walls would not have developed, in this country, if the success and popularity of well designed and managed public walls had not been obvious to the private sector.

Rick

In reply to slab_happy:


I've never heard a trad climber say stop supporting access to sport crags or vice versa. Most climbers seem to dabble in most forms of climbing anyway don't they?

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Just to set the record straight in view of some of the comments above, I did not intend any criticism of the BMC when I made my initial post, though I admit that the final sentence was slightly tongue in cheek. I have always been and remain a strong supporter of the BMC and was for many years an access rep for various parts of the northern Lakes as well as being on the Management Committee.

However, having thought it over, if I do have a small criticism of the BMC, it is that announcing important changes at area meetings (which are generally poorly attended) and on their website (which personally I would never look at unless I was after specific information) is not enough when they have Summit magazine going out to all their members. Forgive me if I am wrong but I did not see any article in Summit canvassing opinion on this matter or the previous name change issue and I suspect that if the BMC does come under fire over these things it is not because they are bad ideas per se, but because it doesn't ask its members their views loudly enough.

As for the commercial partnership with a major retailer, I did not post because I was worried about it. If I spent all my time worrying about what other people are up to I'd not sleep at night or do my job very well at all. As a small business all we can do is keep doing what we have always done which is stick to what we know, which is climbing, try and treat everyone fairly, and hope it pays the bills!

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

On the issue of Summit I agree with you. It's a great magazine and Alex does a fine job, but it is under-utilised as a means of communication. I found it frustrating at the time of the Olympics debate 8 or so years ago that we didn't get a proper for-and-against article. Or that people elected to the exec aren't profiled in detail- I knew who Scott and Rehan were, but they weren't exactly household names.

Yes this information can be found on the website, if you go looking for it, and of course the website isn't tied to a publication cycle, but nonetheless there is no reason why it can't go in the next edition of Summit. I've no doubt that the number of hits on the website is impressive, but my guess is that more BMC members read Summit than ever go to the website.

And whilst Simon Lee is interviewed in the latest Summit, there is no mention of the commercial partnership and merely the fact that he is now Britain's hardest belayer!

In reply to slab_happy:

I heard they did a great job of managing the vandals at Alderly.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Do you seriously think they are worse than a private owner (who might well try and prevent access)?

I refer you to Howards Js wise last words on that incident (an unfortunate one but there is little they could have done to punish the perpetrator):

"First, I should give the usual caveat that I am not a lawyer, but I am a professional land and property manager and have some knowledge of the law and the practicalities of dealing with unwanted actions by third parties.

I believe the question would be, if the vigilante had not removed the rock would the landowner have been able to exploit it commercially? Since the BMC acquired Aldery specifically to preserve it for climbing and would never exploit it commercially then it has suffered no financial loss.

In commercial terms the amount of rock removed is small, especially after allowing for the costs of removal, and certainly not worth suing for. If the vigilante has sold the stone and timber then theft might be an issue, but again there is the question of criminal intent. However misguided he may have been, the vigilante believed he was improving the crag and wasn't doing it for personal gain.

The BMC had plans to carry out maintenance work itself, so some of the work might have been carried out by the BMC anyway, but the vigilante has gone far beyond what was planned. However it could be argued that he has saved the BMC the cost of its intended maintenance works.

It is a natural reaction to want to teach this person a lesson and make him face the consequences of his actions. However the legal remedies are probably limited, and not worth the cost of going to court. Besides, we should be very careful about invoking the law, whether civil or criminal. Climbers habitually trespass on others' land, and often remove rocks and vegetation to improve the climbing (although not usually on this scale). We place bolts and leave tat and other paraphernalia, and disfigure the rock with chalk. We erode pathways. This is all when we are being well-behaved - I won't go into the issues of litter and human waste, noise, damage to walls, unsocial parking or disturbance to livestock. Despite this, mostly we are tolerated by landowners, but where we are not we take umbrage as if our rights to climb outweigh those of the landowner. Looked at objectively, the climbing community is more than happy to ignore the law when it suits us, and is not in a good position to start threatening others with the law (whether civil or criminal). If the BMC were to do so we could find it would encourage other landowners to do the same. Sauce for the goose... There are plenty of good reasons for sorting this out privately, which is what the BMC is doing."

In reply to Offwidth:

I love you!

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


Yes, it's outrageous that the BMC doesn't have security guards posted 24/7 at all crags they own, and that they don't spend their time and money on hugely-costly and pointless lawsuits.

It'd be much better if the crag was owned by a private landlord who could ban climbing completely.

In reply to stp:


This usually happens when you didn't pay the very special offer price, then the full fine, then the refused to reply fine, then the passed on to bailiff fee, then the bailiff visit. Awful isn't it. A £30 /£60 fine becomes max about £300 after 6months or so.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


Mike Ashley is Sports Direct, not the same as JDsports.

Find it hard to believe BMC would get associated with anything Mike Ashley related?

In reply to Rick Graham:

Mile End was the first commercial wall in the country. It opened in 1986 and had several thousand members well before the Foundry opened. Altringham and the Sobell walls were useful; but guided by the BMC they served the 'then and there' need. They were constrained by their locations and the perceived users; and it was partly these constraints that led to Mile End. Mile End worked with Don and Graham to develop the multi-hold Rockcoat panels (and the bolt-on holds idea, copied from Europe) pushing continuous bouldering to as high as we could. Then added lots of matting to give you more that one go.

I'm not sure which 'well designed and managed public walls' you are referring to. There were lots of small walls in sports centres and schools across the country pre-'86 but most tried to replicate or prepare users for the outdoors. Don and the Leeds Wall broke this mould. First Mile End, then the Foundry, the Castle, Rockface, Undercover......all commercial set ups.

The BMC had some officers who understood the need for climbing walls; Anna Gregory and Fanny enthused and saw the need for a national plan; but there wasn't BMC direction.

I think this post highlights the BMC dilemma. There is confusion about what the BMC does and who does it serve. Notionally it it is a representative body for UK mountain users. This was appropriate and reflected its membership up until the eighties. Since then there has been an explosion in participation; but predominately in the Walls. When viewed from the outside by bodies such as Sport England and the Department of Culture,Media and Sport there are questions. The BMC asks these bodies for financial support. In return for the cash, they want to see an increase in recruitment into and retention of existing participants. ie; we fund more people being active. Sport England sees the BMC membership being essentially static; but at the same time huge numbers of new participants coming in to the activity. Extrapolated figures show a possible five million annual visits to UK Walls. The route into climbing is now via the Walls and their beginner courses. A number of Walls helped finance the setting up of the NICAS and NIBAS scheme; which have brought over a hundred thousand youngsters into our activity. Sport England wants to deal with a sports national body; but in our case they see a national body that has little to do with or offer the most active sector of the activity. Add in a MONC where less than one in twenty of the membership bothered to vote and you can see why there are question marks.

It'll be interesting to see the results of the internal review. Should the BMC seek to represent all aspects of the activity / sport / call it what you will. Or should it say 'we represent the outdoor participant' and leave the larger sector to bodies such as the ABC and ABCTT. They will lose influence as the national body; and financial support as a result.

Either way; I am and will remain a member of the BMC.

In reply to webbo:

You can also get another 10 % ontop of the discount card offer, by showing that you have membership with another already mentioned group. Don't thin many people know yet. Don't know if you can play that card after the price match too though.

Bearing in mind Go now stock DMM too, this could seriously affect some smaller gear chains/shops.

Odd because GO are probably making significant losses to thieves.
I go in GO often to look at gear, especially try climbing shoes on without feeling pressure to buy (don't need staff to keep going back + forwards to stock rm), consider the cam options i might want to buy, from there /elsewhere. Often Taunton GO has hardly any climbing hardware on the shelves, quite annoying, but Exeter is usually well stocked.
(I do this in lots of shops for everything + waste loads of time thinking about it rather than buying it!) I often go in with motorbike helmet + biker jacket ( both great places to stash gear), i've even discussed what a shoplifters paradise it is in there with staff who keep hovering by, re all the single + 3 packs of cams with no security tags on. I go back sometimes and see packets hanging with hardware absent.

They don't seem to care much about £60/£170 3 packs with no theft prevention being so easy to nick.
I'm thinking about lining a motorbike helmet with lead (not the one i ride with), would this get me out of the shop with a 3 pack or 2 of dmm cams stashed in it without setting the detectors off? Anyone tried it yet?
I particularly need the big WC no 2 or 3, which would also fit nicely.

I currently still have receipts for all my new gear so far.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I always knew he'd make the grade!

Although I can't remember where and when it was communicated, it was certainly no secret that our very own Shark had arrived to seek out commercial partnerships. Now that he's had his first success, it would seem appropriate (well to me, anyway) to congratulate him. Obviously we need to see how things pan out - but clearly something had to happen re the future of the BMC. Can't we just... monitor stuff - or is that too boring?

Mick (the boring bastard in the grey suit)

In reply to Mick Ward:



Hi Mick, yes it was mainly covered in this thread back in March: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=659136&v=1#x8510189

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:







Seems pretty unequivocal and upfront to me.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Hi Mick,

Thanks. I should point out though that whilst the poll was very useful to get a measure of how the (quieter!) majority of members might feel and react to commercial partnerships it wasn't of itself a mandate to progress commercial partnerships, however clear the result. If this was a marketing poll of customers or shareholders by a private company the Management would probably conclude that the result was good enough to just press ahead but the BMC is a democratic organisation with a democratic process to be followed.

Apologies if you know this already. The way things (currently) work at the BMC is that policy is decided by National Council largely made up of elected representatives from the Areas and this is why the principle of commercial endorsement was out forward for a vote at the the April National Council meeting. As for the details of which Partners we should work with and how - that is approved (or not) by the Executive Board of Directors.

The way things currently work may change in the near future. The Independent Review is looking at what is the best way for the BMC to make decisions (governance) and advise on the organisation structure. It maybe, for example, recommend that direct email polling of members plays a greater role in decision making. This is the sort of thing that the Independent Governance and Organisational review is currently looking at.

Best, Simon

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Simon, could you provide some figures to support the partnership please.

How much income will the bmc receive per annum from the partnership, and what subscription increase would this value equate to per member?

What I am getting at is it may be preferable to pay increased subs to maintain independence.

In reply to johncook:


Yeah, well easy to miss I suppose and £90 for probably less than 3 hours is clearly absurd.


Not always and I'm not familiar with the advertising system. This particular product had only one price and no mention of needing a card. The normal rule in retail is the price on the product is what you pay - something which is enforcible by law.



I didn't notice any difference in the store when they changed their name.

They also fell out with The Edge Climbing Wall pretty badly. I don't know the reasons but the Edge ended up blocking off the entrance from the climbing wall directly into the store, thus discouraging Edge users from going there.

In reply to 3leggeddog:

Just typed a long answer which I've lost due to the internet going down! .

A shorter answer is that subs have already gone up this year and a further rise is not appropriate. Even with the subs rise we are still facing a substantial forecast deficit due to the Sport England situation.

Partnership income is commercially sensitive and confidential so I am sorry but I'm not at liberty to disclose the figures you ask for especially when there is just one partner. Further down the line with other partnerships in place in may be appropriate to disclose a total figure.

There are a lot of uncertainties currently surrounding SE funding and when these are resolved we will be better able to plan how to balance funding and expenditure. Partner income is very welcome at this time and the Partnerships will be positive in many other respects as well.

The upcoming round of Area Meetings will be useful to exchange views and get up to date on these and other issues.

Simon

In reply to stp:

The normal rule in retail is the price on the product is what you pay - something which is enforcible by law.

No it isn't.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-pur...

In reply to Rock to Fakey:


You raise an important point here. Go Outdoors is a private company. They cannot fine anyone, just like you or I cannot go round fining other people. If someone has broken the law they have to report it, go to court and if found guilty the court will decide on what fine or other punishment to impose.

But the fact that many people are ignorant of this is how they scam money out of them. It's not against the law to ask anyone for money. If someone believes, as you seem to, that what they're receiving is a fine and that if they don't pay they'll get into more trouble means they may well cough up the cash. It's a confidence trick that plays upon people's ignorance.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Fair enough. I suppose they need some protection against customers changing the price tags on things. In the past I have called shops on things that have been wrongly priced and they've let me have them at the cheaper price when it's clear the whole batch is priced the same. But thanks for pointing that out.

In reply to stp:

It's was probably because they suspected him of shop lifting. I was in that little shop in Bamford recently and the lady noted down a reg plate of some other 'customers' who had just been in but hadn't bought any thing - she clearly thought there was a chance they were looking around for a potential night time visit. Having worked in Outdoor shops in two different cities you soon started seeing folk who weren't the norm, it's profiling of course, a bit racist maybe and in Glasgow very anti-ned, but stopping shoplifting or snatch and grab of valuable stock was a constant battle. Burglaries pushed a number of small shops out of business. I wear a cap lots but have never been told to leave GO, but that's my middle aged white privilege!

In reply to webbo:
Decathlon sell mostly their own brand stuff so I guess price matching doesn't worry GO that much. Decathlon now even have a model of Scarpa rock shoes that no one else in the country is selling - I'm sure climbing shops offering price matching are happy to see that!

In reply to TobyA:

A sceptic might think decathlon said we'd buy 5000 at x price, but no one else in the country can sell them. If a big corporation has exclusivity, it can make all the price matching claims it wants, knowing it won't ever pay out.

In reply to summo:

I think they have just bought them directly from Scarpa in Italy, presumably for their shops across the world, and not from Scarpa UK. The Decathlon ones seem to be a unique colour and name just to them, although that model is available with a different name and colour elsewhere.

In reply to Rock to Fakey:



Er yes, this was a joke actually!

In reply to summo:


Better still, a logo on each of the belay points on said crag;

"THIS CLIMBING OPPORTUNITY IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY "GO OUTDOORS" A PROUD PARTNER OF THE BMC!"

In reply to TobyA:

That's common across retail though. You'll get items in GoOutdoors and TKMaxx that aren't available to other retailers, they will have been made for them, at their request to their specs and price point.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:



If you aren't prepared to make your life difficult for principles then you don't really have any.

In reply to Big Ger:


A partnership can be positive; North face path? And mammutt has funded environmental research of the North face..

So I'm not anti private money, it just feels different if it's a representative body.

In reply to Big Ger:

How about a tie up with Patagonia, after all it is a majpor retailer.That wouldset tongues wagging. Nice fit with enviromental issues.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

I was at the Peak Area Meet in April when this was brought up, what was also brought up was that the Membership Database WOULD NOT be given to any companies outside of the BMC. They seemed quite clear about this at the time.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Many companies pay minimum wage and have staff on zero hours contracts. Sponsorship ALWAYS sucks.

The BMC is our representative body and we're not allowed to know the finances???

Going by the 2016 report which thankfully we can still see - 20% of your income was from Sports England, 62% from membership subscriptions. Either ask for some or all of the gap from members (extra £10 a year?) or just write it off and reduce your activity. Financial partnership with a commercial body will corrupt your purpose which is to represent climbers (not to grow as large as you can)

and as said this was woefully communicated, vast majority of members will not have had any idea what you were up to. Why all the cloaks and daggers misrepresentation of activity???

In reply to trouserburp:

Some pretty ridiculous comments there. No, you're not allowed to know the details of a confidential commercial agreement, which is a common and accepted practice in business.

As for your suggestion to charge members an extra £10 a year - jesus. Each time the BMC tries to raise the membership fee by 50p or £1 there's a huge storm of protest and people and clubs threatening to leave in droves.

As for being "woefully communicated" that's nonsense. It was communicated via emails to all members as well as local area meetings. It might even have been in Summit. There is no cloak and dagger here, just you not having a clue. Are you Bob Pettigrew in disguise?

In reply to trouserburp:


Which activities do you think should be cut? Do you think all the other paying members are going to be happy with those changes?


How so? I don't follow.


I think it's only 'woefully communicated' in the sense that most bmc members just aren't bothered about the day to day running of the bmc and thus don't look at most comms from the bmc.


What cloak and daggers? Simon is here answering questions in a very straightforward manner. That's about as much clarity as you could ever ask for.

In reply to remus:


Potentially, once this is established, all the sponsor has to do is say "don't do x, BMC or we withdraw our money". The BMC then has a choice of losing a lot of funding, or not doing x, which may well be in climbers' interests - perhaps recommending a competitor's product in a review, for example..

In reply to remus:

>Which activities do you think should be cut? Do you think all the other paying members are going to be happy with those changes?

How did the BMC get itself into a position where its expenses outstrip its income? For starters £600k per year sounds like a lot for a small team's IT and office running costs

>How so? I don't follow.
Large retailer interests are to produce as much profit as possible. BMC will be influenced to deliver this. Minimum expect advertising and promotion of this one retailer as being somehow aligned to us, at expense of other traders. At worst outright corruption, backhanders facilitated by secrecy rules about the arrangement. Also expect this is thin end of the wedge


Was it clearly conveyed at any point to all members that the BMC proposes to partner with an outdoor retailer to secure some part of 20% of its income? This is an important philosophical shift and should be in massive bold letters in the front pages of Summit and in our email inbox with an objective proposal and invite to vote on it. BMC is supposed to be on our side not worming around us



After the decision has been made (again)

It's incredible that twice in one year we find ourselves completely unfooted by our own representative body

In reply to MG:


Potentially, but they will have a contract that, I would imagine, precludes that kind of behavior. All this is just guess work and people looking to shoot down the BMC.

I'm not exactly an active member and only halfheartedly follow what's going on via the e-mails etc but even I was well aware they were pursuing this "affinity partnership" plan. How about we wait till the BMC announce what it is, who the partners are and what it involves before we get our knickers in a twist about Go Outdoors strong arming the BMC into some unsavoury position....

In reply to trouserburp:


Fixed that for you.

In reply to MG:

Presumably the terms under which funding could be withdrawn would be pretty tightly specified within whatever contract the BMC sign with the retailer(s).

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Seriously what is the difficulty with sending an email or putting a prominent message in Summit if you are making a major decision? and why can't it be honestly and objectively worded so the outcome represents our views

This is a real question

In reply to trouserburp:


Great. I look forward to you demonstrating how the BMC is going to make great savings by reducing it's use of paperclips and staplers.


I still don't get it. You seem to be under the impression that if the BMC enters in to any sort of commercial agreement they'll immediately bow to the evil commercial overlords and be puppets to their scheming ways.

I assume the BMC have gone to retailers with a proposal that is mutually beneficial to both parties (i.e. beneficial to the BMC and thus it's members) and this is going to be backed up with a contract that's not written by a five year old, and thus offers some protection in case things don't go as planned.


Hopefully not. I don't want to hear about it every time Dave Turnbull buys a different colour tie. You may think it's the most important thing since the bible was published but others disagree.

In reply to trouserburp:

No it is not a real question. You start off by saying why can't plans be communicated and then you change it to say why doesn't the BMC reflect your answer to a question that they haven't even asked.

Ps stop trying to claim that you are talking for anyone other than yourself.

In reply to remus:

Sponsors are evil. When we got sponsorship from Adidas they made us drop all of our other sponsors and told us we could only sell Adidas clothes and 5.10 shoes in our shop. Or maybe they didn't!

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Any modern organisation is likely to be involved in advertising/affinity deals BUT I don't believe that working with "four key partners: a BMC-recommended Retail Partner, Climbing Equipment Partner, Clothing Brand Partner and Mapping Partner" is a wise move.

If the BMC is recommending anything to it's members that recommendation should be based on the quality of the product rather than the amount that a company is prepared to pay for an endorsement.

In reply to timjones:

They have had a 'mapping partner' for well over 10 years, I don't remember people jumping up and down about that strategic partnership.

In reply to Frank the Husky:




Thank you. A most welcome injection of sanity.

Mick

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Seems like the new retail partner is Cotswolds.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


If that means the Harveys mountain maps, wasn't that a new product that filled a sort of niche?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Yes it did fill a niche but it also made Harveys a lot of cash. It was a real partnership with very tangible benefits for Harveys.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

but I'm not sure how a Cotswolds "BMC recommends this product" label on a Regatta jacket is going to work in quite the same way. Await with interest to see how it pans out.

In reply to MG:


Does this same issue affect the Olympic Games, the World Cup, Football Clubs, Cricket Clubs, in fact virtually all sporting activity, as they all have massive commercial sponsor partnership deals?

Of course it doesn't.

What we need here, is less hysteria, and more understanding and acceptance of the financial and commercial realities.

Climbing and its representative body, can not operate in a vacuum, no matter how much some people want it to do.

In reply to Goucho:



You don't think any of those have been affected by sponsorship!!? Of course they have - they are profoundly affected in every way.


I'm not necessarily opposed to this but I do want to know what the deal is. The idea I can't know the arrangements the BMC has with sponsors is absurd. Also, it is clear the communication about this has been poor. Again. Even statements in this thread from BMC accounts are plain wrong in part - there are at least some Area Meetings it wasn't discussed at.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Just in case anyone asks. I'm entirely relaxed about it. Keeps the subs down and I still get to apply my own independent thought to what I buy.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

A major conflict of interest; a concerning shift in approach, for members; and no doubt unfair for many smaller businesses. A stupid move, IMO; a neoliberal "solution" (public-private partnership) for a neoliberal problem (austerity).

In reply to Mick Ward:
It was a highly loaded questionnaire, so no surprises it came out with most people in favour. Nonetheless, due process followed. It just shows what chumps most people are... I'm pretty disappointed that 72% of respondents cannot see how this kind of partnership with private companies threatens the BMC's democratic processes, its claims to impartially represent climbers' interests, its reputation, and many other smaller climbing businesses. There should be a campaign FOR government funding (without all the stupid restrictions and BS of Sport England) - not a passive okaying of a move to transform the BMC into an organisation that operates like a private business.

In reply to trouserburp:



You are genuinely clueless. Emails were sent and the news was in Summit. So here's an actual real question for you - why didn't you read the emails, attend an area meeting or read Summit properly?

A further example of how ridiculous your complaints are is your suggestion that £600k is "a lot for a small team's IT and office running costs". Simple research will show you that there are 34 full and part time employees. Given that fact, and knowing that many have to do a lot of travel & staying away as part of their work (e.g. Cath, The Robs, Elfyn etc) then £600k seems like a pretty reasonable amount of money considering the diversity of their skills and responsibilities.

It's time you stopped this nonsense.

In reply to C Witter:

>... It just shows what chumps most people are... I'm pretty disappointed that 72% of respondents cannot see how this kind of partnership with private companies threatens the BMC's democratic processes, its claims to impartially represent climbers' interests, its reputation, and many other smaller climbing businesses...

Don't feel disappointed! There could be lots of reasons why people responded as they did, some of which involve them not being chumps. Perhaps many people are more willing to give the BMC the benefit of the doubt that they'll proceed with caution, or that the BMC won't succumb to bribery, or they are prepared to see how it pans out before crying foul. Either way, it strikes me that it would be helpful to be less antagonistic, and appreciate that not everyone who disagrees with you is a chump.

Personally I have some reservations, but given that we don't know the details it seems to me that it's premature to assume the worst when its very possible that the deal may work out well for both parties.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Thanks for your answer, I understand the sensitive nature of the sums involved.

In the absence of those figures, I will extrapolate from the 2016 report quoted by trouser burp.

20% from sport England (now gone)
62% from members subscriptions

This implies an increase in subs of around a third to cover the funding gap. A member of an affiliated club would see the bmc part of their club subscription (currently around £15) increase by £5. Significant but not a huge sum.

In reply to C Witter:


Out of interest, how *do* you think the BMC should solve austerity?

I should note that I personally am all for ending austerity; however, I don't particularly expect the BMC to accomplish this for me.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Many varied, valid and interesting opinions! Think I'll wait and see what transpires, following the advice from a guy called James who wisely wrote, "let every person be quick to hear and slow to speak."

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I appreciate your spirited defence but there are a couple of errors in what you are saying. To summarise the rough timeline of communication and actions were as follows:

Feb: National Council Workshop to discuss Commercial Partnerships

Mar: Online poll of 6000 random members to gauge general opinion

April: Paper sent to those Areas holdings meetings with Commercial Partnerships discussed. I attended most of these meetings and it was voted on

April National Council: Principle of commercial endorsement approved

Summer Area meetings: NC reps report back to Areas about National Council meeting

July: Web article published in BMC website entitled 'Why the BMC needs Commercial Partnerships" and inviting enquiries

Aug 25th: Retailers advertised as offering a discount on BMC website given advance notice by email that a Commercial Partnership with a retailer will be launched on 1st Sept

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Is that billed as "BMC recommended"?

I can see no problem with affinity deals or sponsorship, but if only one supplier is to billed as BMC recommended then surely it should be the one that the BMC judge to be the best rather than the one who is willing to pay the most?

In reply to Andy Reeve:

I admire your optimism and general bonhomie, Andy. Personally, I don't see how it can work out well, as it already marks a departure from what I consider to be good principles for a representative body. But, I appreciate that I'm in the minority - not least because neoliberal ways of operating so permeate our working lives, and much of our private lives, that most people barely bat an eyelid at the ways in which the BMC - like our schools, universities, charities, healthcare - has come to operate as a business.

In reply to timjones:

No it wasn't really billed as anything. But it was a money maker for both parties.

The BMC has had many sponsorship/partnership deals over the years, ranging from The North Face or Snow + Rock sponsoring the big events at the NIA or NEC, Reebok sponsoring the British Team to Lowe Alpine sponsoring the Winter Skills Lectures - I am certain that Cotswold have had a previous involvement also with some lecture series. No one seemed to complain then but I don't know the scale of what is being proposed as yes, 'recommended' is clearly different from the Snow + Rock World Cup.

In reply to slab_happy:

I obviously don't think the BMC can "solve austerity". That doesn't mean that I think it should roll over straight into bed with a private company.

As I said in my original comment, I think the BMC should have publicly protested the cuts in its funding. Sports organisations should group together and resist these cuts. FFS, we're constantly hearing about the "obesity crisis" and how "more than 6 million adults" don't go for so much as a walk a month; meanwhile, Mo Farah and Bradley Wiggans are held up as the Nation's Saving Grace - but we can't put some decent funding into sports? WTF gives? Call these hypocritical politicians out, instead of doing exactly what they want you to do: become a corporation and go looking for private investment, meaning that sport organisations cease to operate as a public good and instead embrace a market rationality.

In reply to C Witter:

As I said in my original comment, I think the BMC should have publicly protested the cuts in its funding. Sports organisations should group together and resist these cuts. FFS, we're constantly hearing about the "obesity crisis" and how "more than 6 million adults" don't go for so much as a walk a month; meanwhile, Mo Farah and Bradley Wiggans are held up as the Nation's Saving Grace - but we can't put some decent funding into sports? WTF gives?

Isn't Sport England primarily aimed at the grass roots aspect of sports, the encouragement of take up within that sport and providing funding for entry level competitions? From a Sport England point of view, their funding should be more directed at the climbing wall end of climbing as opposed to discussing access issues, etc.
If so, the BMC Members themselves might well have shot themselves in the foot by constantly questioning why 'their' money is being spent on organising events at climbing walls, sending teams/individuals to competitions abroad and essentially sneering at the BMC for having any involvement in climbing being an Olympic event.
Austerity cut backs aside, Sport England probably think climbers don't actually warrant much money anyway...

In reply to C Witter:

I have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying here but I also think it's fair to wait for more info about what the actual deal(s) will look like. I stayed a member of the CC whilst living abroad for quite a few years because I like what they do and I like what they stand for. I'm a BMC member because of the CC and I'd like to continue to feel the same about the BMC. To me it will matter if deals like this don't feel right because as you suggest, we live in a world that increasingly makes everything about money, perhaps the BMC just needs more volunteers, now there's a thought!

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Cheers. So basically there's been plenty of communication and consultation, so the claims of a cover up and a failure to communicate are as nonsensical as I thought. Good luck with it and ignore all the professional complainers on here.

In reply to stp:
You are right that only councils or the police can charge parking fines. Private bodies can and do still levy parking charges (or similar wording) for not paying the 'normal' fees/charges. There is a vast amount of advice on the web about whether or not you have to pay these charges - it depends on a multitude of factors. Have a google when you have a spare hour or three. By the way, the parking was probably subcontracted by GO or whoever owned the car park to a third party parking company. Supermarkets etc do it as well. I'm not saying it's 'right'.

In reply to stp:
Ignorance is no excuse. The sign was there both in the edge and GO.
I have been going in the Sheff store since time began (mid 70's) Once GO introduced the card they have used the two pricing system. Maybe you made a mistake, it happens, or they may have, it happens. You would have been put right at the check out where you had the option to buy or not! (not buying may have made more of a statement to the store than just sulking if you were right.)
It is not against the law. The price is an offer to tender. If you don't like the price don't buy. If the store has made a mistake they have the choice to cover it or not, their choice. They do not have to sell to you.
There was very little change in the stores after the buyout as finances for massive rebranding was not available and possibly the rebranding would have been unpopular, it has been known! Staff attitudes improved once they knew their jobs were secure.
Blocking the door off also made it easier for the edge to keep track of who had or hadn't paid. So far as I knew the agreement was mutual. The free car parking for edge users continued until the edge closed. Hardly a massive falling out scenario!
If you don't like GO don't shop there. Decathlon in Sheff have parking charges on their car park, which if not paid will result in a charge notice being sent/delivered. They have a refund system I believe, but have not read it. Maybe you have and would care to enlighten me. Maybe it is displayed behind the checkout and I have made a mistake and missed it!

In reply to stp:


In fairness to GO, the wanton wearing of hats indoors is one of the warning signs of douche-bagery.
The subject was comprehensively addressed in Django Unchained

In reply to johncook:

The Edge and CC/GO fell out. Period.

In reply to MG:


A well drafted agreement will set out what the sponsor can and can't do. At renewal time they might have more leverage but equally the BMC could threaten to go to another sponsor.

In reply to remus:


Dave Turnbull owns a tie?! I resign my membership in protest! I thought the entire BMC staff still lived in the caves at Stoney, dressed in 1980s rags and soloed E6s in EBs.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


I never knew that, Graeme. Very sad indeed. Obviously the whys and wherefores are none of my business but, for what it's worth, I always liked both of the guys concerned.

Mick

In reply to timjones:



Who mentioned "BMC recommended"?

We have a deal between the GB teams and Berghaus, whereby they supply team kit, and gain exposure via the association with the teams. Nobody, including Berghaus, have ever said "the BMC recommends Berghaus".

In reply to Ian W:



It's in the article that ukb & BMC shark linked to

www.thebmc.co.uk/why-the-bmc-needs-commercial-partnerships

which appears to be the best information that we have available at present.

In reply to timjones:




There is also further info in the paper circulated to the Areas for discussion: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2449

In reply to SteveSBlake:




Exactly. Very bold move, painfully soon after the last controversy.

In reply to timjones:

Just read the article. No it isn't.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark: and Tim Jones.

But it is in there.......

In reply to Frank the Husky:
I'd like to make some complaints as well since they seem so vital here.

UKC posters consitently understate the massive amount of good work done by the BMC; especially in access, from lobbying through land purchase to specific local detail; that keeps the crags, mountains and hills we love open and in good condition. Slab happy is right to bring up the Roman's joke.

Most of the work done in the BMC is done gratis by hundreds who have devoted major periods of their life to this work and thousands of other volunteers who do really care about the issues above. The budgets you describe show the oragnisation is paying pretty low salaries (the BMC employees must be doing this partly out of the love of the work) ... with on-costs (pension and NI and process to recruit, train, process, manage departures and sickness etc) and expenses you can add upto 50% in similar organisations to the salary bill (so multiply the headline by 2/3 and divide by staff numbers).

The BMC is being 'propped up' by numerous financial sources other than subs and as many in its membership see themselves as hill walkers as climbers. This finance problem is concrete: real people in the organisation who are doing good work face losing their jobs sometime in the next year if money is not found somewhere; budgets for future emergency land purchase will be tighter; volunteer support will be curtailed. Climbers are a mean bunch who need to wake up and see how important it is the BMC is healthy. If only half of active outdoor climbers joined we simply wouldnt be anywhere close to where we are in financial terms. Its particularly galling to see people threaten to leave on single issues... a bit like cutting your off your face to spite your nose; if the BMC really pisses you off at least make an equivalent annual donation (gift aided) to the access fund instead. Some of the bigger complainers fairly acknowledged they were not currently members but way more were strangely silent on the matter.

Good luck to Shark who is trying to close a finance gap that is only there because most climbers are too mean and stupid to fill it themselves.

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks Steve

In reply to Ian W:


"No it isn't" what?

In reply to timjones:

In thr artivcle. but my subsequent post acknowledges it is in the document linked by Shark.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:


this is where I have a slight problem with the way that the BMC operates. If this paper was circulated to the areas why isn't it listed on and attached to the agenda for the West Midlands?

In reply to Ian W:

Of course it is in the article.

What else do you think "Over the next few months, Simon Lee, the Commercial Partnerships Manager, will seek to enter into affinity partnerships, ideally with four key partners: a BMC-recommended Retail Partner, Climbing Equipment Partner, Clothing Brand Partner and Mapping Partner." means?

In reply to Offwidth:

He's got a point you know. Nothing very much that happens here is of consequence, whilst the BMC is full of people trying hard to make a difference. Funding cuts are real. If only some of that energy on here were devoted to careful negotiation with landowners, unofficial crag clean-ups, guidebook work, etc, etc. It probably is in some cases, but still. Not very fashionable to say "nice work BMC, we like what you do". There said it. Rejoined too for what it's worth.

In reply to Offwidth:


I agree on access, and fully support the BMC on that. However access and conservation is the primary role of 3 out of 33 BMC people (though some of the 33 are part time). (See https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-staff-list ).

I must say that -- feeling a little argumentative this morning -- looking down that list I got the impression -- perhaps unfairly -- of an organisation that had expanded to fit the money available.

Maybe they're just not presenting what the roles do that well. For example, one "events coordinator" role is described simply as: "manages major BMC events including the International Meet". That's it for a 3.5 days-a-week role. (And that doesn't include competitions, which are done by the competitions officer.)

Were I to -- off the top of my head -- list what I'd consider essential roles in an era of reduced budgets, I'd come up with something like:

3 people: access/conservation (as now)
1 person: competitions, events, walls liaison
1 person: technical, huts, MTE liaison, clubs liaison.
1 person: publicity, communications.
Supported by 1 CEO, 1 IT/website bod, 1 admin/finance and 1 secretary.

Which adds to about a third of the current list.

In reply to Offwidth:

I can only agree with everything you say, which is why i would prefer to see a subscription increase and a wider range of non-exclusive affinity/sponsorship deals.

The paper is quite right in identifying that many organisations use affinity deals but I'm not aware that any other organisation that I hokd in the same respect as The BMC has opted for "strategic affinity partnerships".

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Well now we know, it's Cotswolds/Snow and Rock. Here is an email from the BMC:

Introducing the BMC's new recommended retail partners: Cotswold Outdoor and Snow+Rock
British climbers and hill walkers will soon benefit from an exclusive range of benefits, thanks to an exciting new partnership between the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) and leading outdoor retailers Cotswold Outdoor and Snow+Rock.
This September, Cotswold Outdoor and Snow+Rock will become the BMC’s recommended retail partners, supporting the BMC’s vital access, conservation, safety and youth work on behalf of all climbers and hill walkers.

After the partnership goes live on 1 September, all 83,000 BMC members will have access to exclusive discounts on clothing and equipment at Cotswold Outdoor and Snow+Rock. The benefits will be available online and in stores nationwide and, to celebrate the launch, will be available at an enhanced level for the whole of September.

BMC CEO Dave Turnbull said:
“We welcome Cotswold Outdoor and Snow+Rock on board as our recommended retail partners. There is a natural affinity between our members and the expert service offered by Cotswold Outdoor and Snow+Rock, and we look forward to working closely together.”

Greg Nieuwenhuys, CEO at Outdoor and Cycle Concepts, the parent company of both Cotswold Outdoor and Snow+Rock said:
“We are delighted to formalise our long-running relationship with the BMC through this partnership. Becoming their recommended retail partner enables us to further engage with the British climbing and hill walking community, as well as supporting the fantastic work the BMC undertake to ensure continued access to the landscapes so many of us hold so dear.”

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:
Full details now on our site:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-cotswold-outdoor-snow-and-rock

The official launch date is this Friday, when all BMC members will get 20% off for the whole of September. Up to 500 volunteers will also be able to apply to get 20% off permanently.

We'll be emailing all members the discount code on Friday. It's also printed in the latest Summit (out 14 September) and will be in the members log-in area.

Using the discount should be straightforward, but if any members experience any teething troubles, do get in touch and we'll look into it!

Cheers

In reply to Offwidth:






Well said. This thread seems to have gone the same way as most where "BMC" is mentioned - lots of ranting based on few facts.

Personally I feel that the BMC does a good job with the resources it has available. I'd like to see them doing more, especially on service for clubs, but it needs the funding to do this. If that means a tie-in partnership with retailers (and, hopefully, other industry partners), then so be it.

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:







Seems like a wise choice - national coverage from a respected retailer. Good work!

Now that you've a retail partner, offering BMC/Climb Britain goods, similar to DoE branding, may be a natural next step. And, no, I'm not joking.

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:






That link does not work for me. EDIT Now it does.

As everyman and his dog can get 15% off at Cotswold anyway I do not see this as some super adavantage.
Cotswold always seem a little dearer anyway, do they actually add a bit on to take a bit off?
You say full details. How much exactly have Cotswold paid for this advertising?

In reply to timjones:


Maybe because the timings of the Midlands meeting were out of synch with the National Council meeting in April. There was a meeting in February and the next one wasn't until May. I sent the paper to be discussed at the May meeting but wasn't able to attend as it coincided with the Peak Area one where I am a volunteer. The Chair said that he didn't recall any dissent about Commercial Partnerships.
Like

In reply to rj_townsend:

Agreed.

In a way I am amazed that this has not been done before. The concept of affinity partnerships like this has been around for a long time.

And in a roundabout way the BMC already does it with the insurance scheme which is a classic affinity scheme.

In reply to J1234:




I very much doubt there is an agreed up-front figure. It's far more likely to be an annual rebate based upon how much incremental business has been generated for Cotswold, easily calculated through the use of exclusive discount code. Whether that is based upon number of transactions using that code, or the overall value of those transactions I wouldn't like to guess.

Edit: If you already get 15% from them, you may as well use the BMC code for that discount so that we can all get the funding for the access work done by the BMC.

In reply to rj_townsend:

I know many organisations have discount codes at Cotswold, they usually seem to be 15% with some at 20%. A club I was involved with have a 15% code and as far as I am aware they get no rebate. Maybe all clubs and bodies should be asking Cotswold for some rebate.

In reply to J1234:


That would be a decision for Cotswold. If their business model is to buy business in that way, that is up to them. The BMC is intending this as a revenue stream, so whether that revenue is up-front or staggered according to business delivered to Cotswold via the scheme remains to be seen. I'd imagine that both parties will review in twelve months and see whether the scheme has delivered what they both expect. If it hasn't, it goes.

Personally I'd like to see the scheme work, delivering more revenue to the BMC via incremental sales for Cotwold (and any other partners that may be put in place in the future).

In reply to J1234:

My office gets 15% off because the building happens to be within 200m of a Cotswold store.

Seems like a good deal to me, if they're willing to give the BMC money for something they were going to do anyway...

In reply to La benya:
The point being

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

how much is the BMC getting.

and is it ultimately to the advantage of BMC members if this impacts independents who have long supported the BMC by giving a discount.

Also if the best price is the ultimate criteria (which is not always the case) have the BMC looked into if this will be what Cotswold are offering or just a mugs discount off an inflated original price.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:



I don't think that the chair listed it on the circulated agenda.

In reply to J1234:





I suggest you attend the 2018 AGM for the BMC, and scrutinise the accounts that will be distributed in advance, as this will show the revenue generated by this partnership. If at that point you feel the return is inadequate, I'm sure that the BMC will be delighted to hear your proposals for how it could be done better in future.

In reply to rj_townsend:


Why? Alex Messenger said full details are on the website.

In reply to J1234:

Either way its free money for doing nothing... whats your issue with that? it cotswold isn't the cheapest with the discount, go elsewhere. it'll soon come to light if the offer isn't beneficial.
if they are competitive then the BMC gets some cash. and as i said, they were giving the discount anyway so the BMC is hardly going to be held to ransom over something which everyone is entitled to by various other sources.

I've just looked through my wallet and i am entitled to discount there via 6 different schemes.

In reply to J1234:

The details of the outcome of a partnership that has yet to start is hardly going to be available is it?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It doesn't take very much work to find the staff list https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-staff-list

Who do you think answers the phones, sells the memberships, sells insurance, sells other products to 75,000 members?

In reply to J1234:


If the scheme pays the funds retrospectively, which I strongly suspect will be the case, they won't yet know the exact figures, will they? They'll have a forecast, which the commercial sensitivities of any such scheme may or may not permit being published in advance.

If you don't want to support the scheme, use one of your other discount codes. If you can run the scheme better, get on the phone to Turnbull of the BMC ilk and I'm sure he'll leap at the chance of benefiting from your inspired suggestions.

In reply to rj_townsend:


But how can I decide whether or not to support the scheme when I have no idea what the actual potential benefit is to the BMC?

To be frank this just looks like corporate Double Speak to me
“We are delighted to formalise our long-running relationship with the BMC through this partnership. Becoming their recommended retail partner enables us to further engage with the British climbing and hill walking community, as well as supporting the fantastic work the BMC undertake to ensure continued access to the landscapes so many of us hold so dear.”
and tells me zero. It could range from a couple of BMC stickers in Cotwolds Luton store, right through to 50% of all profits generated by BMC members.

In reply to J1234:

Money is the potential outcome. why are you being obtuse?

In reply to J1234:


How much are you planning on spending?

From your earlier posts you can either;

A) use a discount code with Cotswold which provides no financial benefit/rebate to your chosen organisation, or;
B) use a discount code with Cotswold which provides the BMC with a [as yet undefined] financial benefit/rebate.

Either way you receive the same level of discount. To me it seems like a fairly simple decision. Even if the BMC benefits by £0.01 from your transaction, that goes towards the access work that they do, along with their other activities. If you don't want that, don't use the code. Simple.

In reply to La benya:


I'm wondering the same

In reply to La benya:


Is it? I have not seen at any point the BMC state they will actually receive cash. They do say a commercail tie up, which hints, but nothing concrete there.

In reply to J1234:

Are you dumb?

In reply to rj_townsend:


Has this actually been stated? All I see is boilerplate about "exciting" "affinity" schemes etc. Some concrete information would be welcome.

In reply to rj_townsend:

Cotwsold are getting 000`s of £`s of PR here and our National Body is promoting them in favour of longstanding people who have given discounts. Just a total lack of loyalty, and for what.

In reply to La benya:

Why the agression. It's perfectly reasonable to ask what the arrangement is. If it's 10% of all sales, that's one thing; if it's simply a discount that's widely available anyway, the BMC aren't getting a very good deal.

In reply to La benya:


LOL. No not at all. This just so smacks of something dreamt up by team enigma on the apprentice. Its bullshit baffles brains time, a mugs eyefull.

In reply to MG:

It seems like you're assuming Mr Shark et al are morons and would happily give away (as you say) £000 of free advertising for 20% off some shiny gear.

Whats the more reasonable assumption. Occam's razor perhaps.

Agreed there are limited details online, this is a commercial venture. go to the meetings and find out.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You must realise those numbers you portray are huge underestimate of the access and related work done by BMC employees. Much of the lobbying and serious access work involves input from all the senior management and more than half of the of the employed officers at some time or other (including over 4 FTE officer level staff as a main role if you read carefully). All the service staff are servicing member information, finance and support; members who time-after-time put access at the top of the list of important things the BMC does. Some staff are in roles to earn money for the organisation that in an ideal world should come from membership subs. In any case, the bulk of the volunteers are access linked; the 'we' is much bigger than the Manchester office: the volunteers, members and employees are all the BMC. So, for a Professor and area meeting regular, maybe your devil's advocate role is oddly based on superstition, rather than research, logic and fact; so obviously so I'd suggest that you may need to brush up on your Dawkin's.

No organisation is perfect let alone one who had to deal with with major brand problems, a MoNC and funding cuts. Even knowing that I think (medium term when things settle down) the BMC could do better in some respects: one area would be access/volunteer support terms... I'd particularly love to see the volunteer coordinator officer role back in the BMC (it's sort of shared across roles at present), but who pays for it?; another would be in better advertising the good it does... but marketing and management is very busy as it is and again where does the money come from. It's a clear fact that way too many outdoor climbers don't join (or donate to the access fund instead). It's sad a tiny minority of climbers who are members burn masses of costly effort in the organisation in things like anti-democratic motions of no confidence after being outvoted numerous times on their particular single issues (a motion by necessity based on misinformation distributed effectively in secret). This led to the resignation of an excellent president (a volunteer who found the role in the midst of such ructions had become bigger than a full time job) and the necessity that one of the two active VP's (the third has just become a mum) has had to step in and cover in such difficult times. Climb Britain was also very unfortunate, as, speaking as someone who is glad we retained the BMC name, it burnt more time and money and showed how the mass membership is way more likely to get motivated and angry about branding than the much bigger problems the organisation faces (current finance; growing access problems in austere times; the anti Olympic sentiment in that minority who are still busy plotting.....).

In reply to J1234:

Fond memories of Loadsamoney: "You don't wanna do it like that ..."

In reply to La benya:

I really don't know why you are being so unpleasant about this. It is entirely appropriate for members to query new financial arrangements of the BMC. No, I'm sure Shark isn't a moron. However, I do also know that Cotswold (and its parent companies) are large organisations, experienced in these sorts of deals, with plenty of resources to skew them in their favour. By contrast the BMC is small, by it's own admission struggling for resources,and doesn't have much experience to draw on. Given this, I think it quite possible the arrangement isn't as great as portrayed, and the secrecy and marketing-bollocks language surrounding it makes me doubly doubtful.

In reply to La benya:


Whys is this the stock reply.

For your info went to an area meeting and was totally disgusted and vowed never to go again.

Broke my vow and went to the last one, and was pleseantly surprised.

As for phoning D Turnbull, I have in the past and found him pleseant with time for members.

However on this issue, if the BMC our national body are asking us to use Cotswold as opposed to:
Needlesports
Outside
Fell and Mountain
Joe Browns
V12
The Climbers Shop
Epicentre
Whalley Warm and Dry

all with staff and owners that are active outdoors people who do BMC work and have all helped me with advice over the years, I want to know precisley why, up front, and not to have to drive 100 miles next year to analyse some set of accounts.

In reply to J1234:










Possibly because Cotswold are a nationwide chain, rather than single-site shops. Not everyone has easy access to V12 or Whalley Warm and Dry.

In reply to john arran:


LOL The point is it is not clear what the "like that" is

In reply to tony:


We all have easy access because most of them have decent online stores.

In reply to J1234:

Unfortunately I think sometimes there's an attempt to stifle debate, or invalidate others opinions. The deal might be the best way for the BMC to fund it's activities, but there's nothing wrong with members trying to understand the situation by asking questions. Sometimes that gets twisted, as per my query about Sport England funding and the re-brand.

In reply to timjones:


I don't know about you, but if I'm in the market for a new piece of kit - a new jacket, or a new pair of boots - I like to try them on first, before buying anything. Whalley Warm and Dry make much of their boot-fitting service, but I'd wonder how effective it can be online.

In reply to La benya:

The scheme starts on 1st September. Hmm, do you think that there might be an announcement on Friday about the possible benefits of the scheme both to the BMC and BMC members (the latter has been leaked by Alex!). Just asking

In reply to MG:

Shark is well enough experienced in the corporate world to know what he is doing. That is why the BMC employed him on a fixed term contract - to buy in the experience and skills they lacked to achieve an outcome they knew they would struggle to without someone like him.

In reply to tony:


I've always found the indpendent online stores to have an excellent exchange policy if you get the wrong size.

The extra bit of postage isn;t anywhere near the cost of the fuel and time that I would burn to get to my nearest outdoor store.

In reply to Offwidth:


Is it? Well I was simply going by what the BMC website said people's roles were. Like most people here I appreciate the access/conservation work that the BMC does, but from their website it appears to account for about 10% of their employees' time.


Sure, but again, my (somewhat provocative) post was about the employee roles.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

In addition to agreeing with everything Offwidth says in his last post, BMC activity is worth a much higher subscription even just for work on our behalf for access.
Well done for securing another income stream.
Paul

In reply to Offwidth:

I have no doubt that everyone who does paid or voluntary work for the BMC works hard and does a good job, I also think the concept of seeking sponsorship makes sense.
However, I find myself wondering if the BMC structure that has "evolved" over the years is right or whether it might be losing some focus and being drawn down avenues that aren't what it was intended for, maybe the current review they are carrying out will resolve this. Is the business review being done internally or by external consultants?
To me there seems to be some obvious issues:
1. The competition side of things which costs £0.25m(2016 accounts) is an obvious growth area, should have a separate image so its not held back by the BMC image,(possibly be a separate organisation) and should be seeking funding and sponsorship, particularly with the Olympics in mind. If such a dynamic, trendy, cool sport cant fund itself then someone is doing something wrong.
2. The main BMC organisation(minus the competition side) could be slimmed down of people and wages (£1.25m 2016 accounts), and be seen as more a conservation/access/charity type organisation. Individual climbers and walkers may be more willing to join and pay subs if they knew their money was going to conservation and access and not being paid in wages or for travel to competitions.

To me the competition and the "traditional" work of the BMC are two separate businesses/markets and keeping them together is to the detriment of both.

I would also add that the BMC insurance probably doesn't help the finances as much as most people think (according to the accounts) and just doesn't seem to me to fit with the organisations aims, maybe it could be sold off to another insurance firm.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

It seems that the worst will be assumed until proven otherwise in all cases involving the BMC.

I just don't get the big hoohaa about this at all.

Someone suggested that cotswold would bully the BMC into a bad deal because they lacked the size and experience..... can anyone honestly say that they would have submitted to giving away exclusive advertising rights (effectively) for a 20% discount for members? brings me back to Occums razor.... wwhats the most plausable explanation.... the BMC needed X amount of cash, and theyve come up with a deal in which Cotswold plugs some of it or all of it.

I was against the name change, and probably got drawn into the drama of it all... but this is getting ridiculous now.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

I would say that a surplus of approx £1/4 million from the insurance sales in both 2015 and 2016 helps the BMC's finances quite a bit. And it went up by approx 10% from 2015 to 2016

In reply to bedspring:


You mean no additional direct benefit for YOU. But there is a benefit for the BMC.

In reply to La benya:



There isn't a big hoohaa, people are mostly trying to find out about the new deal and how it fits in with the bigger picture of BMC funding of it's core activities.

Might have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone calling anyone dumb, and people generally aren't assuming the worst. They just aren't assuming it's all for the best, which is different.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Is there, you know this for a fact. Well to be honest I have seen you on UKC for years and I have the opinion your a straight guy and to be trusted. So if your telling me that you know for a fact that the BMC is getting a good finanacial reward and that its enough to warrant shafting all the independents who have supported them over the years, thats OK by me.

In reply to J1234:

Where do I say that I "know for a fact that the BMC is getting a good finanacial reward and that its enough to warrant shafting all the independents who have supported them over the years,"

I said "there is a benefit for the BMC", I did not attempt to quantify that benefit.

And get real over the "all the independents who have supported them over the years", the independents have not been supporting the BMC, they have been using giving discount to BMC members as a marketing tool for themselves. I support the BMC but I don't give BMC discount in my shop because I don't believe it benefits the BMC or my business.

In reply to Martin Haworth:



Comps didn't cost the BMC £0.25m in 2016. I assume this is from the final page of the 2016 accounts, which details the specialist programmes, but is not in my mind particularly useful.

The cost to the BMC of the competition section was £38,439 for that year, as follows;

Programme costs - 167,666
Committee travel etc - 4,466
Total outlay - 172,132

Less income - 100,308 (entry fees, sponsorship etc etc)
Sport England grant - 33,384 (Mainly YCS series)
Balance (cost) to BMC) - 38,439


I dont think that would be a good thing - part of the strength of the BMC is its critical mass, and its reach into all areas of climbing / mountaineering. And how do you think conservation / access work gets done, if no wages are paid to those that do it?


Thats been looked at, and for the time being, would not really give any benefits to either side (see threads passim).

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Do I really need to spell this out?? On the staff list much of this is obvious but lets be clear since that 'detail devil' is evil with spin. Dave and Nick from senior management do masses of access work: Aside from the 3 formal access roles the following officers do obvious stuff related to access: Carey (walking related access), Tony (area meeting support), Jon, Alex (and team) and Tony (access publications and web reporting), Niall (guidebook and guidebook committee access related work), Dan (equipment related access stuff like bolted crags), Jane (club related access work), James, and Jo (minority demographics and intro to the outdoors and the vital message of access in that), Alan (member of numerous access related committees), Becky and Suzanne (access related projects coordination, like organising access events and crag cleanups)... and there are not so many who havn't helped out on some access event I've aware of, sometimes volunteering to help in their own time. This is all off the top of my head so sincere apologies for anyone on the staff with a major access input I've forgotten.

Then a better overview of the organisation:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/an-overview-of-bmc-people?s=5

Finally the exec committee (all but Dave here are volunteers):

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-executive-committee-board-of-directors?s=5

In reply to Martin Haworth:

I think you're just wrong as the influence would be massively reduced by such a slimmed down organisation. I know some people disagree with the bigger modern BMC but if they won't support this due to concerns they could just donate to the access fund instead (and that's not happening at any such scale or it would be a lot healthier). I think too many climbers are just too mean for their own good and the SE income, commercial links, comp links, insurance and other member service tie ins are best included to keep membership (and that vital political influence) up. Most of these aspects have nearly always been part of the BMC since I've been a member, so instead of its current 80,000+ members, if it slimmed down to what you suggest I think the membership might struggle to top 10,000. This is from 2.4 million people are said to be regularly involved in activities under the BMC remit:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/make-your-voice-heard-bmc-agm-vote?s=6

An overview of what they do well on campaigning with that influence:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/why-is-the-bmc-campaigner-of-the-year?s=6

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not saying they don't do a good job, but potentially could it be done better. and the point about scale that you and Ian W. both make is very valid, I just think that there is an argument for specialisation as I think the markets they are targeting are actually very different. Economies of scale are great but sometimes "niche" businesses are more focussed and successful, and they could do an even better job.
An analogy would be that if they were a high street retailer they are trying to be Topshop and Oxfam at the same time.

Is the business review being done internally or using external consultants. Use of an external consultant in this instance should be money well spent.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Ha ha. I think you have just perfectly highlighted why the BMC face an impossible task. Most of the membership (if what you see on here is representative) would disagree.

In reply to J1234:
You could just trust the BMC exec to have made a rational business decision that whatever the sponsorship level is, it will be significant enough to be worthwhile.

Also, is it really Cotswold vs V12? For some items, yes, but generally I'll go to V12 etc (usually online) for most technical gear, which Cotswold simply don't stock. Their stock of nuts and cams etc is risible. Cotswold is good for camping and general outdoor wear (which isn't really what V12 etc focus on), plus the odd bit of more technical wear just because they happen to stock it and it happens to fit (which V12 etc might or might not stock).

In reply to Ian W:

Ian
I was talking about costs, I think you are referring "net costs", and you have missed out the direct overheads of £67,000.
The total cost was £239,000, the "net cost" was £105,000, however you look at it, it was a cost. The cost was offset by income from what looks like mainly grant funding of £134,000.

I've responded to you second point about scale in a reply to Fiend.

On the final point of splitting the BMC I suppose for now we will never know as I don't see it happening.

I don't want to come across as some old traditionalist, I'm viewing this from a business/economics point of view, I'm all for competition climbing and Olympics climbing but it is a world away from fell walking/ mountaineering/conservation and access.

In reply to Tyler:

I'm probably being a bit thick but I don't understand the point you are making?

I was trying to convey the point that using external business consultants(as any similar business would do on a regular basis) might throw up some opportunities to change strategy (or to carry on business as usual). Sort of fresh pair of eyes approach.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

I expect the people after a smaller BMC would baulk at the idea of paying consultants to advice on saving money. Also an oblique reference to the external consultants who were brought in to advise on the rebrand

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Graeme
The point I was making is could the insurance business be more valuable to another organisation than it is to the BMC, what could they sell the business for? because I don't think it helps their image.

In reply to Tyler:

OK I understand now.
I think regarding the rebrand it was probably more the way it was done and the perceived lack of consultation that was the issue. Everyone involved got flak and the external consultants were no exception and are always an easy target.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Martin - the insurance already 'belongs' to another organisation, the BMC just sell the insurance to members and take a percentage/fee. It has also been used/seen as a driver for membership - it is good quality specialist insurance only available to BMC Members.

I don't see it as having any negative image, I see it as a positive, it is providing a service to members.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

OK, so the BMC are insurance brokers and the income on reflection is quite good.
I didn't realise the insurance was only available to members, that seems like a missed opportunity to me?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

There is some third party insurance cover in the membership itself , which is more relevant to everyday climbing in the UK:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/members-liability-insurance

In reply to Martin Haworth:

They're an AR not a broker.

As Graham said, its a driver to membership, if anyone can get it, they miss out on the subs.

In reply to La benya:

I'm not in the insurance business so you'll need to tell me what AR stands for and means?

In reply to Martin Haworth:

An Appointed Representative only sells insurance for one insurance company, and cant give you independent advice as to whether it suits your needs (over and above their sales guff).

Often they have a specific customer that has a niche requirement and have gone to the market asking for an insurance company to create a bespoke product for them. They then get exclusivity on the product/ pricing.

In reply to Martin Haworth:





I am referring to net cost, as there is no point in looking at gross cost; if comps didn't happen, and GB Climbing Team didn't exist, the saving would be the £38k. If we spent £1m on comps, but got income of £962k, the effect would be the same. As I explained, the grant funding (£33k) is for the YCS predominantly ( the final of which is the BMC's single biggest participation event). The £100k income is from entry fees to the comps and some sponsorship (the Arch climbing centre sponsor the senior boulderers for eg.)
The overhead allocation is a bit spurious as only a very small proportion would be saved should comps and the team not happen, or become a separate organisation. The £38k cost is also a worst case scenario, as there are no doubt a reasonable number of members of the BMC who took out membership in order to access reduced entry fees (especially amongst youth and families with young competitors).

My point regarding scale is that the "markets" may appear different, but the customers are the same. There will be very few, if any, of the senior comp climbers who do not climb extensively outdoors. Most of the juniors climb regularly outdoors. Should we need two organisations for them; not an efficient way of handling matters. And yes, I have looked extensively into different scenario's regarding organisation/ independence of the team and comps.
Also, most climbers do more than one thing; from fell walking through bouldering to expeditions and alpine / ice climbing. All of which share very common interests (training / eqpt / access etc).

In reply to Ian W:


This, to me, is a spurious argument. The converse certainly isn't true in that the majority of hill and mountain users do NOT do competition climbing nor would they see any particular benefit in their representative body supporting it with their contributions.

People deal with different affiliated bodies for their activities all the time, whether its running, cycling, football etc. No one is suggesting lumping these bodies together because its convenient for those that, say, play football and race bikes.

In reply to Martin Haworth:



I think this post pretty much reflects my view as well.

In reply to GrahamD:

Playing football and racing bikes are somewhat more different than comp climbing and sport (or even trad) climbing. So try again on that one. Anyway, it would be more convenient for a bike racing footballer, or for that well known centre forward, Chris Froome.

And you'd better hope the number of BMC members joining for comps is less than 1800, as at approx that number, they start subsidising others........

In reply to Ian W:


I disagree. The requirements of a competition climber of their governing body is completely different from any outdoor user, sport climber or otherwise (who's main issues revolve around access etc.). The fact that both feature climbing and both use bolts for protection is irrelevant - the function of their respective bodies is totally different in the two cases.


It would, but a merged representative organisation in these disparate cases makes no sense at all and it won't happen. It doesn't happen even when there is some superficial overlap between sports that maybe share the same facilities (football and rugby, maybe).