BMC Subs - 2005

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I have just read with interest that the BMC subs proposed for next year (2005) are as follows:

Club Members - £8/member - a 28% increase
Club member upgrade to IM - £13.50 - a 42% increase
Individual Members - £ 27.50 - a 10% increase

Note this is only proposed but it still sounds like a move in the right direction. Maybe all the debate we had on this forum last year wasn't in vain!

Alan
 Simon Caldwell 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
I'm not sure that another well-above-inflation increase for IMs is a wise move. At this rate it'll hit £30 in 2006, at which point a predict a significant fall in membership.
 Offwidth 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

Any news on student clubs?
Tim G 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

> Individual Members - £ 27.50 - a 10% increase
>
> Note this is only proposed but it still sounds like a move in the right direction. Maybe all the debate we had on this forum last year wasn't in vain!

In vain my backside! £27.50 is way over the odds. I am not paying that untill the BMC puts its house in order, cuts it cloth, gets with the program, blah blah.

Not happy at all.
Where is that number for snowcard insureance?
I am going to need it because I will not be paying anymore in BMC subs so that they can pour it down the drain.

BMC get back to the important stuff. There is a real threat that you will ostrasize your members with this prize hiking.
All most people want is access and representation. The rest is chaff unless it is self financing in a free market.

Where did you read this subs document Alan?
 Offwidth 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Tim G:

I think they will be forced soon to consider a little more seriously splitting insurance from the membership fee. I saw recently that the Foundry have closed their good value policies due to problems with some large claims and the caving problems are much larger.
 Chris the Tall 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
The original proposals had club members paying £7.75 and the upgrade at £11

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/thebmc/download/egm_proposal_table.pdf

So it looks as if they've taken on board our main argument that the upgrade was too cheap. Also, in reducing the gap between what an IM pays to what an upgraded CM pays from £9.50 to £6, they've brought it more in line with the stated objectives of phasing it out over 4 years (rather than 19 years).

Whether the clubs will accept the whopping £1.75 increase is another matter....
In reply to Offwidth:
> Any news on student clubs?

No
In reply to Tim G:
> Where did you read this subs document Alan?

A reliable source.
richard bradley @ work 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Simon Caldwell: I assume this follows from above inflation insurance increases.

When is the annual meeting? I want to review the accounts for last year beforhand so that people who turn up might have a better understanding of what they mean.

If Mr Messenger reads this, have the accounts gone to Companies House yet?
Tim G 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Offwidth:

I think the cavers have sorted there problems now but at a cost and with much effort. As you say they now have individual premiums.

I think the whole thing was that the BMC underwriters would either do an all or nothing deal on membership insureance for TP?

I am not sure that this increase is due to the insureance premiums. It probably more down to an expanding remit.
I think the BMC should be slimming down and looking at its remit. Also making best use of volenteer officers who would have less expansionist, empire building, self serving motives.

It is up to the committees to keep a handle on this stuff. You cannot just keep asking for this and that and expecting the money to be availible.
The role of the committees is non trivial in this respect but when did you last here the financing of anything, new officer posts, cost of maternity benifits being discussed at local level. I am not saying that either of these is directly proportional to the increase. Just that you cannot keep demanding services and expenditure without considering how much that will cost.

The BMC are close to failure. I doubt that clubs will rise to the increase cost so quickly. These increase will demand a serious consideration of the overlap of club memberships and the finantial implications of this problem. Unfortunetly the BMC tell us the will not be able to identify how many multiple club members they have untill they have complete the SC funded IT upgrade. It isn't like it isn't in a DB already!

Likewise a good proportion of individual members will get their holiday insureance else where and let their membership lapse. Just look at the number of threads discussing the cost of BMC insureance anyway.
I think the BMC travel insureance is reasonalbe but add to that £30 to fund a load of competitions, international trips for the elite, Subs for the UIAA to slash up against the wall on nit twits like one Poger Rayne,

It aint looking very good. Nice one BMC remember that you are nothing without your members. You are going the right way to losing both the grace of the clubs and the cheque books of the individual members. I doubt that at near £30 indi members will still 'vote with their cheque books!'

RIP BMC
 Chris the Tall 26 Feb 2004
In reply to richard bradley @ work:
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/event_det.asp?event_id=879

AGM is 24th April, in Bristol.

I thought they always had them in Buxton ?
Anonymous 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Tim G:

Sorry DB = database.

Select Distinct [Members.name] From.... Where....

richard bradley @ work 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Chris the Tall: Moving it away from the likes of me?

Buxton would be handy (and I would be able to get a pass out) but I suppose the membership comes from throughout the country?
RichardB 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

Hmmm - very open policy I see.
In reply to RichardB:

There isn't anything secret about it, it was in a document that is sent to people who regularly attend area meetings.

Alan
 alex 26 Feb 2004
In reply to...

AGM's tend to rotate round the different areas.
Accounts not out yet as far as I know.

 alex 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Tim G:

Will point your post out to Dave when he gets back.

ANDY MAC 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

£27.50!!! NO THANK YOU. I resented the £25 let alone paying more already. I can remember paying £14 in 1997 and £7 as a non club student? Whats going on?

Have you got solid gold desks down at hq in manchester? I reckon it is time some of those desks dissappeared, i dont care if they are made of gold or not. People sat at desks cost money.

Andy MAC
 Toby_W 26 Feb 2004
Regarding the cost, I've just joined a tri club, £25 pounds gets me coaching sessions for each sport and a lot of other things like insurance & various affiliations. The BMC is looking two expensive for what it offers and I only joined in the first place for the insurance which this year with membership cost £180.
As to club member to full member being cheaper than individual member it is a little annoying.
Cheers
Toby
richard bradley @ work 26 Feb 2004
In reply to alex: Thanks Alex...let me know when they are?

Cheers
Nick Ward 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Tim G:
> > Where did you read this subs document Alan?


it's in the summary from the lastest mancom...
Anonymous 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Nick Ward:

Nick is that last December's Mancom or the one of 14th February 2004?

I am curious because I am wondering why it didn't come at area level?
In reply to Anonymous:

14 February
Nick Ward 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Anonymous: I got my copy today... so I guess you'll get a revies at your next area meet
 Dave Musgrove 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

I read this today as well, Alan. I'm pleased to see that reason is starting to prevail and the winds of change are blowing strongly in the right direction. It will take a couple of years yet to achieve a properly balanced subs structure but we are getting there.

Also pleased to see Peak area stalwart Michael Hunt proposed as VP. A very sound and right thinking candidate.

Dave
 gingerkate 26 Feb 2004
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Oh, so that was what was in that document I just deleted! Bit hasty of me

Will the clubs vote for these increases, though? They didn't last time they were asked to vote for an increase to, what was it, £7.25? But I'm glad the leadership is leading in the right direction, even if the leadership of the organisation is powerless :oS

(I'm not a member anymore, my financial contribution to climbing goes elsewhere until they get it sorted).
 Mark Stevenson 27 Feb 2004
In reply to gingerkate: Well, just emailed a copy to our Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer and General Secretary. I somehow doubt the BMC would have contacted them directly - which they really ought to have done if they want the couple of thousand votes they control to fully support it.

Can't say for certain but we will probably go along with it provided the BMC produce a decent 'sales pitch' in support of it (unlike last time round).
James Jackson 27 Feb 2004
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

Who is it who emailed you this? I haven't been sent it but would like to read the document, being SW area secretary and all...
 Greg 27 Feb 2004
In reply to gingerkate:
> my financial contribution to climbing goes elsewhere >until they get it sorted.

Does this mean you'll be sponsoring my life as a climbing/skiing bum for the next forty years, Kate? I've been looking everywhere for funding, with no luck so far. Go on, you know it makes sense!

 gingerkate 27 Feb 2004
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
From what I know about the workings of the BMC they are more likely to have asked their (ie the big clubs) permission to make these sub increases than neglected to notify them. Especially after last time. I hope so anyway, I hope the big clubs are supporting it
 gingerkate 27 Feb 2004
In reply to Greg:
Sorry Greg, but no
Are you coming to glencoe btw?

(I split it between the Calder and Edale mountain rescue teams.)
 Simon Caldwell 27 Feb 2004
In reply to gingerkate:
> Will the clubs vote for these increases, though?

Well their excuse last time was lack of notice. They can't use that one this time
Anyway as you say later on, I'm sure the proposals we passed by them for unofficial approval first.
James Jackson 27 Feb 2004
In reply to James Jackson:

Oops, I had been emailed it... Managed to miss it in all the junk I get sent!
Tim G 27 Feb 2004
In reply to Mark Stevenson:

Mark why would you club accept the proposal.
Surely upon consideration they can see that spirling subs are actually going to disenfranchise the BMC from their existing membership. Especially if they keep cranking the individual contribution.

When you vote you really need to consider if the proposals are sustainable rather than whether they are acceptable to your club. Afterall the BMC will not be of much use if its membership is limited to members of your club on the grounds that everyone else has left?

The BMC really needs to start examining its remit rather than just keep asking for money.

Come on £13.50 increase in 7 years? Something is fishy somewhere. Where will it stop. Are you prepared to just keep paying? I suspect you are not and in that case you need to start asking questions about the BMC cutting it cloth more appropriately.

Don't get me wrong I am not a stingy. I will pay £30 or whatever it takes to secure access to our crags.. However I doubt that the vast majority of individual members will. I have my doubts about the club sitution too.

However I will not be paying it to the BMC because I do not believe that the money will be spent in accordance with my proirities. If this increase goes ahead, I will be diverting my subs and the saving I will make on travel insureance to the Access and Conservation trust instead where it will be ringfenced for appropriate uses.

Andybazz 02 Mar 2004
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
...
>
> Club Members - £8/member - a 28% increase
> Club member upgrade to IM - £13.50 - a 42% increase
> Individual Members - £ 27.50 - a 10% increase
>
> ... Maybe all the debate we had on this forum last year wasn't in vain!

- Obviously all the debate WAS is vain.

- People have still not got their heads around the fact that "members of clubs" are NOT BMC members.
They do not have the same benefits/services as Individual members.
-Can we compare Apples and Cannonballs because they have 'nearly' the same shape!

- It is the CLUB which is the member of the BMC and the ONLY CLUB MEMBER is the club representative.
- It is the the CLUB which pays an affiliation fee of not less than £140 - considerably more than the £25 from an Individual member.

Having said that the BMC continues to do nothing to correct these misconceptions and at this stage in the debate the obvious conclusion is that it is deliberate BMC policy to stir up resentment and outrage between Individual members and members of clubs in order to force through the changes they want.

A great pity, because if only the BMC would talk openly and honestly to its membership I think there would be little difficulty in making appropriate changes.

NB. The (big and small) clubs were not consulted about the current subscription proposals and they are not happy about that.
Anonymous 03 Mar 2004
In reply to Andybazz:

`It is the club which is the member of the BMC...´, is that so? Why then, did I received (sent it back) full membership details, pack, membership number etc after I mistakenly, joined a BMC affiliated club ( I thought I was merely paying for the use of a climbing wall after filling out a basic `climbing wall members form´?. The BMC - open and honest...
 Simon Caldwell 03 Mar 2004
In reply to Andybazz:
> They do not have the same benefits/services as Individual members

True. IM's get personal accident insurance, wheras clubs have access to many more huts (since most can only be booked by clubs, nbot indivoduals). And of course, club members get a huge discount on indovidual membership.

> It is the CLUB which is the member of the BMC and the ONLY CLUB MEMBER is the club representative.
> It is the the CLUB which pays an affiliation fee of not less than £140 - considerably more than the £25 from an Individual member.

Yes, if you're being pedantic. But the club fee varies depending on the number of members, as does their number of votes. Any club without sufficient members to more than cover the £140 minimum is likely to fold anyway.

> The (big and small) clubs were not consulted about the current subscription proposals and they are not happy about that.

They possibly weren't directly consulted if that's what you mean ("excuse me mr club secretary sir do you mind if we make these increases?"). But there's just been a wide-ranging consultation process which anyone could contribute to, I assume the big clubs all made their views known. Far from being unhappy, our (small) club believes that club affiliation fees are too low and should go up, and we're more than happy with the proposed rates. Personally, I don't think the IM subs should be increased as much as they are.
 Simon Caldwell 03 Mar 2004
In reply to Anonymous:
> Why then, did I received

It must have been an administrative error.
Andybazz 03 Mar 2004
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
>> It is the CLUB which is the member of the BMC and the ONLY CLUB MEMBER is the club representative.

>Yes, if you're being pedantic.

- NO Simon, This is the whole crux of the issue!

! Members of Clubs are Not BMC members !

If they were there would be no need for them to also join/upgrade to Individual membership, which a great many do (about 55/100 of my small club)
 Simon Caldwell 03 Mar 2004
In reply to Andybazz:
> Members of Clubs are Not BMC members

To all intents and purposes, they are. Anyway, this has been discussed endlessly before, and ISTR you were outnumbered by about everybody else to one

> If they were there would be no need for them to also join/upgrade to Individual membership

There is no need. It's worthwhile though because the BMC is (mostly) a good thing.
rich 03 Mar 2004
In reply to Simon Caldwell: whoah - deja vu :¬)
Andybazz 03 Mar 2004
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
> ISTR you were outnumbered by about everybody else to one

Apparently "everbody else" is sadly mistaken


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...