UKH

I have just submitted updated verification info to the Office for many of the unverified signatories as well as the details of 71 new signatories for both resolutions. 

The total number of signatories stand at 512 for financial disclosure and 462 for the subsidiary.

It remains to be seen whether the signatories that are validated exceed the required threshold (382) for either or both resolutions. Therefore, I have formally confirmed I wish to progress the resolutions through Members Council as well (requiring only 25 signatories, validated number already well exceeded) whilst the validation process is taking place.    

For reference the resolutions are:

1.The Board is required to publicly disclose a full and detailed breakdown of the finances for GB Climbing for the financial years 2022 and 2023 and its budget for 2024 within 6 weeks of this AGM and is urged to be more open and transparent in its affairs and more responsive with specific requests for information 

2. The Board is required to set up GB Climbing as a financially independent body that is no longer subsidised by the BMC. It would also be desirable if the Board made any subsidy, loan or bailout to this new body subject to a reserved matter that is included in the articles. 

Thank you everyone who signed and in particular everyone who took the trouble to dig out and send me their membership number (150+ people)

Simon

Further to my submission to MC I was invited at short notice to give a presentation last night and field a Q&A with several pertinent questions being levelled. I was expecting a response on whether MC voted to include the resolutions or not today.

I didn’t hear anything back today but from Natalie’s article published just now in the news section I see a paper* linked which is an aggressive organisational response to the subsidiary resolution with many suppositional items presented as fact.

The proposal in Natalie’s article to effectively split GB Climbing into two parts can be categorised as the bits that UKSport are interested in (and funds) and those that don’t effectively creates a UK Sport outpost within the BMC. 

I think the true colours of the new CEO have now been revealed. 

(One interesting nugget is the implication that the BMC subsidy to GB Climbing is estimated at £386k pa!)

I really don’t like the way the BMC is heading.
 

*https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/240426_Competition%20talent%20pathway%...

Looks like the Link isn't working/has been removed.

Thanks. Edited to use Natalie’s full link

The BMC article starts “Following board and council approval, the following documents have been created to give members an update on the following topics”

Does this mean the rebuttal document is the official Board and Members Council position and response to the member backed proposed resolution on setting up GBClimbing as a subsidiary? 

Simon

Thanks for all the hard work you have put into your resolutions.  It is clear how passionate you are to find a solution and to make the BMC more accountable to its members.  

It is very disappointing to see how you have been treated by the MC.  Several (all) members of the MC have clearly known about the work you have been doing on your resolutions and they must have known they would be discussing matters closely related to your resolutions last night.  To have invited you with such little notice demonstrates a high level of disorganisation and/or unprofessionalism that only adds to the feeling that the BMC do not know what they are doing.

However, for the BMC to then immediately release a blow by blow hatchet job of your proposal for the subsidiary is beyond belief and demonstrates a high level of comtempt for your effort.  Why did they invite you to present your proposals to MC when they knew full well they were not supportive and had already rubbished your work?  It is also interesting that on this forum some members of MC have indicated support for your resolution going to the AGM.  Were they completely in the dark about the new proposal or just stringing you along?

The document responding to your proposal purports to be providing key information to give a clearer understanding to members.  Whilst I think the document raises many valid points it also includes conjecture and guesswork presented as if fact.  The document has probably been rushed (that is how it reads) but has clearly not been fully thought out and certainly does not present a balanced view.  To say it is providing key information to give a clearer understanding is disingenuous at best.

The BMC appear to be continuing to mishandle this whole situation.  I expect a far higher level of professionalism and openness.

Thanks again for all your work Simon.  I am sure I am not the only person who much appreciates what you are doing.

Tony

Thank you Tony. It is Orwellian what is happening.

The assertions made need to be backed up in detail with facts and in a couple of cases with written statements from UKSport.

I had a brief discussion with the UKS governance rep and her response was effectively that a subsidiary setup was a nuisance as the contracts would have to be reassigned to the new body but saw no other obstacles. 

GBC is just a part of the BMC so regardless of whether people agree on the amount spent it’s not correct to call it a subsidy. You could take any activity such as mending footpaths and call that a subsidy if you happened to dislike footpaths and thought them a waste of money. I think the terminology matters. Massive overspend on the wrong priorities? No issue with anyone making that point, but competition climbing has been part of the BMC budget for a very long time, well before the existence of GBC, so it’s not some new alien activity that the BMC has recently decided to “subsidize”; it’s just something they choose to fund in a amount that you might disagree with. The board has full power to decide how much to spend on completion climbing without splitting it off. If people think that amount should be zero (or some amount low enough that the BMC has no case to be the NGB), fine, get rid, but don’t imagine the BMC can then still somehow control competition climbing or get its participants to become BMC members.

It gets worse. I’ve just clocked that the BMC article which includes the rebuttal paper was published last Friday. I feel like a right sap doing the presentation and Q&A on Sunday evening not knowing that the Board and MC had already approved and had that published. What a farce.

Odd that they can prepare responses in advance for this, but they can't prepare details/responses of a (possible) £100 000 error in the accounts before they mention it! 

If I could get equivalent insurance elsewhere I would be out of the BMC. It is all perceived as a huge mess and only appears to be getting worse when it comes to respecting the members. Communication is back to where they are telling the members what the board want them to know, and not much else!

It will be interesting at the Peak Area meeting on Wednesday. 

Just been on the BMC Peak Area. The agenda for tomorrows meeting has disappeared? 

Sorry to hear this fella. We had been told that the CEO was working on an amended version of your proposals in these forums, I suppose just not how it would be communicated or what the amendments were. Chin up, Simon. You can be rightly proud of your efforts to bring change and you have at least outed the organisation to be just like any other faceless, CEO led organisation after all. 

Cheers.

The paper is designed to put the frighteners on members and I wasn’t given a heads up let alone right of reply.

I hope attendees at the local area meetings will ask what went on at Members Council and push for the assertions in the paper to be factually substantiated by the reps and attending Board members. 

You can always offer rebuttals here, on UKB, at the area meeting, at the AGM and via clubs. The BMC has done open forums to debate issues prior to an AGM in the past as well?

Section 2.1 cites damage to the BMC's relationship with UK Sport which seems like a none issue if they don't have Olympic sports in their purview anymore, I am guessing they are concerned about potential issues if Ski Mo, or ice climbing are included in winter Olympics in future? My understanding of the funding was that UK Sport was olympic focused while Sport England is recreation focused with some used to facilitate development of inexperienced athletes for competitions in future years.

Section 2.2 seems to have some unnecessary hyperbole added, but concerns around an independent NGB being seen as the face of climbing by government and advocating for positions which conflict with those held by the BMC's membership was discussed extensively before the major articles change in 2018 (or 2017, I forget which year).

Section 2.3 is what multiple people have expressed concerns about around your subsidiary motion for several months. The possibility of board resignations is unsurprising if individual board members feel that the subsidiary approach would be harmful to the BMC and its supported activities, why would they give up their time for free to implement something they believe is a bad idea?

Of more concern to me is the competition community members on BMC Watch expressing concerns about the board proposed solution (noting they have already expressed concerns about your subsidiary proposal too). If there is no proposal on the table which they feel is satisfactory this is just going to keep rumbling on and on to the detriment of everyone, in particular the young people who are attempting to compete on our behalf.

Firstly, final validated membership numbers in support of your motions are not available yet, so we don't know if one or both of your motions will transfer formally to the AGM under rule. Checking these has been very time consuming for BMC membership staff, when use of the web form (which you declined) would have been far less time consuming for staff; with members supporting your proposal just required to enter simple information to identify themselves (in a similar way to when they proxy vote at an AGM).

I've posted several times on these threads that no one on Council has said they supported your subsidiary proposal: the main reasons being due to very real risks, big resource implications in the transition, extra running costs, and dilution of competition climbers rights as BMC members. This is in context of very tight finances and staff capacity in 2024. I've also said the majority of Council support the CEO's plans (but have had input to them especially from the Nationally Elected Councillor for Indoor Climbing).

Council urged the CEO proposals and Council and organisational concerns about the subsidiary proposals to be available for members to inform debate. Members can judge for themselves if these are the honest concerns of the BMC and it's elected representatives. Members certainly deserve to hear all sides of any debate.

On your financial disclosure proposal: Council have always supported the intent and are clear this disclosure for 2023 (and planning for 2024) should be provided as soon as possible. However, we have to wait until the audit is complete so the information is correct (it's unfortunate the audit process took longer than normal but hardly a massive surprise given the scale of problems in 2023).

The BMC financial situation is a serious business: staff have been made redundant and more are now at risk. Important work has been curtailed and meetings have been moved to video conference despite obvious benefits in face-to-face interaction. Members face continued cost of living pressures on paying subs to membership organisations and subs rise 7% this year (a few percent below inflation when the figure was set but still significant for those who are struggling). Equity of treatment for members is becoming more important by the year, especially for Competition climbers, given big stakeholder issues in GB Climbing (issues where Council are still not fully satisfied as yet). Hence, getting Council to agree the expensive, disruptive and divisive change in your subsidiary proposal was always going to be unlikely.

So did you vote on it or not. If you had and approved it going on the agenda it would have saved a ton of staff time. If not then everybody would know where MC stood. I presume you kicked it down the road

We invited you, as you formally asked to propose the motions through Council. Before we follow any line on votes we need to ascertain if the motions already meet the Articles requirements. You didn't ask us formally until recently (Council are very sympathetic on the potential double jeopardy issue which influenced that decision and are looking at articles tweeks to remove that risk). We always had a diary date planned for a Council meeting in the likely case it was needed.

On the finances proposal Council always supported release of any information we reasonably could, as soon as possible (certainly well before the AGM as the AGM papers date are a hard deadline on a finalised financial reporting position).  Through Council and public statements it's clear the Board and CEO also support such open disclosure.

Council always knew the issues around the subsidiary: the information around the idea has been fully debated before (some current Councillors were part of the detailed reasoning from 2018) and debated very extensively online in recent months. We fully respect the genuine concerns that led to the proposal.

I am greatful the BMC proposed plans for GB Climbing (and BMC concerns about the subsidiary option) are public now. There is nothing 'set in stone': there is just a prefered BMC option and its reasoning. Members can chose to debate and ask questions on what they wish.

The core problem with this proposal and comp climbing is this: the BMC is either the NGB or it isn’t. There is absolutely no chance people will tolerate being controlled by a body that isn’t the one that bears ultimate liability. If the BMC membership votes to get out of its obligations, then it votes to get out of its rights too (control of comp climbers and the collection of their membership subs). Nothing can stop the members voting for that, if it’s what they want, but the idea that the BMC can have its cake and eat it is for the birds. It simply wouldn’t be tolerated. Sure, the BMC could (if it could afford to) spend a fortune on lawyers trying to cling onto control in the face of an angry athlete community and extensive IFSC lobbying, but it would ultimately fail because the position would be morally indefensible, and in the end, no organisation would want to be in that position, regardless of legal challenge. The hand-waving argument that somehow the BMC cuts off the financial risk but hangs on to control is a load of ill-thought out nonsense. Vote to get rid of comp climbing or vote to keep it, but don’t vote for a fantasy world.

The core of the issue for non-comp climbers (bulk of individual and club affiliated members) is that they don’t want the BMC to control comp climbers, nor to be the NGB for competition climbers, and don’t want their subs to pay for it

That’s a perfectly fair opinion to have; it’s a members organisation and if that’s what they want then it would be much better to be voting on exactly that. Voting for an idea that can’t work isn’t going to help the BMC in any way, but bury it in a huge mess. There are very significant responsibilities that come with being an NGB, which are not optional. If the BMC members decide the org shouldn’t take those on, then it is what it is, drop the comp community in a simple and clean way, and let them find their own solution (there are plenty groups with good ideas). For what it’s worth, an argument for keeping NGB status is that it’s probably the biggest source of new members under the age of 25, a lot of whom will remain members. I say probably because I’ve no evidence of it, it just feels like the many hundreds who join in order to compete wouldn’t be matched by under 25s who join for other reasons. Maybe there’s some data on this.

That's a lot of people that you're presuming you can speak for.

All governance changes (including the extensive debate to form the new BMC structure in 2018, that enabled the BMC to meet governance standards for comp funding)  required AGM supermajorities.

Most members I meet support comp climbers being in the BMC,  although within that group a significant number do have concerns about fair costs to members for that. There is of course a significant minority who feel the way you describe but they always lost any votes at AGMs and local area meetings.

What percentage of the under 25 climbers that are found at climbing walls do you think are active competitors rather than just casual leisure climbers?

Pretty low I’d say. But you don’t have to join the BMC to go to a climbing wall - you do if you want to take part in anything national such as YCS. Note that you have to then pay more to enter any national comp and you have to pay all your own expenses to compete for the national team. The BMC doesn’t subsidise the athletes. The athletes and their families cover all the costs. What the BMC staff (and GBC are just BMC staff) spend on comp climbing is for the board to control appropriately. One of the biggest issues in fact for comp climbers has been the BMC not using its quotas, thus denying access for athletes. It’s not at all clear what the logic is and frankly I don’t think the BMC has a clear idea. We’ve heard ‘cost’, ‘performance standards’ and all sorts other stuff that rarely lines up to any sort of coherent story. The vast majority of the comp community would quite happily use the full quota allocation without the BMC spending any money. You need a few “arena” coaches at comps to handle appeals, but people would rally round to make this happen even if the BMC sent none. The cost to the BMC is not coming from the athlete community. In fact the bulk of the athlete community is extremely effed-off that the BMC doesn’t allow enough people to compete even when there is literally zero cost to the BMC (you can’t compete unless the BMC allocates you a license, and it keeps picking small teams and missing entire competitions). All this can be solved by the board getting a grip of the few people within GBC who are blocking athlete access and (apparently) spending too much. It’s a straightforward management issue, not something that requires blowing up the organisation.

It seems very wrong that this "paper" only focuses on the negative effects of a change.

I would expect any genuine critical analysis of such a change to identify at least a few positives.

or members/aware of the bmc ?

Even lower. The first time many kids and parents become aware is when they decide to do a competition, typically YCS, and find that they have to join the BMC.

I am a club member, I am happy for a bit of my money to be spent on competition Climbing as long as it is spent well and benefits those who are competing in a meaningful fashion.

I would imagine that student clubs contribute more under 25 members to the BMC than competition climbing, although they are less engaged with the BMC (based on my experience at Loughborough from 2011-2015). Both groups are important to the future of the BMC.

I am a club member and not a comp climber although my son competed some years ago, so I am familiar with the UK competition scene and know a number of climbers who, like my son, have got into "proper" climbing through the comps. You do not speak for me. Comp climbers are just as much part of the climbing community as any other climbers. The best of them are likely to be at the cutting edge of our sport in the near future, the likes of Will Bosi, Alex Waterhouse and Billy Ridal to name but three of our top climbers came into the sport through comps and the GB development squad. The BMC should represent all climbers, not just those you consider to be "proper" climbers.

He. Didn't. Know. About. The. Webform. Until. After. He. Started. His. Petition.

How many times Steve?

No wonder Simon has been so shoddily treated by the BMC and MC given that you're so happy to continue to misrepresent sequence of events.

The language used is completely inappropriate for a document like this.

Also I nearly spat me tea out when I read the part about reputational damage.  It's genuinely hilarious.  What sort of reputation do they think they have after the last few years of farcical chaos?

Indeed, and if this comment from Andy Say is correct, the webform has never been used...

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/crag_access/bmc_resolutions_shout_out-770...

Council always knew that he wasn't aware at the very beginning, our President's post on one of the threads made that clear (and that situation arose partly because he didn't ask anyone else on Council for help, other than the President who was on holiday). It was advertised a few times since early 2020 (including all AGM notices) but clearly not well enough, especially given issues on finding the process on the website.

My point on this has always been: if Simon had asked those on his change.org petition to use the webform, AFTER he knew it existed in February, it would have saved a lot of time for him and the staff and maybe even would have achieved a higher number of validated members. We can't change what happened now but Council always supported maximising help for the process Simon chose.

Some of us on Council also urged a degree of flexibility on the count, for reasons discussed on the other threads.

The fact the webform hadn't been used previously doesn't seem to me to be particularly relevant. Any problems would have been obvious quickly and worst case we would have had to try to validate individually (as actually happened in any case).

Lessons have been leant and the majority on Council want the process for member resolutions reviewed and better advertised for future AGMs. 

Ok, let's make a deal here. You can EITHER stop saying this, OR you can stop accusing other people of misrepresentation/misinformation whenever they say something you don't like. You cannot continue to do both.

This is disappointing. It's not up to members' council to decide what the members support. As we've discussed, their role is to represent. 
"Members' Council acts as a representative body of the members, consulting with and constructively challenging the Board of Directors, and holding the Board to account on behalf of the members."
So, stupid idea or not, when the members want the opportunity to debate something, MC's job is to facilitate that. NOT to decide what the outcome should be. That is for the members to decide. Or at least it should be; it's becoming ever more clear with every misguided press release that the BMC board isn't an organisation run for or in the interests of the members.

Exactly!  A little known poorly publicised form, which had never been used, and Simon was only mad aware of the existence of after he'd started his position.

Offwidth repeatedly trying to lay the blame of the administrative mess the petition signatures caused on Simon as he "declined" to use it really gets my goat to be honest.

If that's the kind of behaviour it's members indulge in, it makes me question the integrity the Council as a whole to be honest.  I wouldn't tolerate that kind of behaviour from a team member at my work.

+1

Yes, we all know this.  But you have continued to completely misrepresent events.

You can't decline something you didn't know existed.

He shouldn't have to cancel his petition and ask everyone who signed to now go and sign something else. 

No doubt some people wouldn't have been impressed with now being asked to do something they've effectively already done, and wouldn't have signed.  

It's a nonsense he was ever asked if he would do so.  Utter shambles.

https://www.mountaineering.scot

If I was an individual member I would have already switched.

None of this handwringing and manual checking would have been necessary if council had read the sentiment and decided that the Financial gubbins and GB Climbing shenanigans was worthy of proper debate. It didn't actually need one or more petitions.

I'm heartened by recent improvements in Comms and engagement. I'm disheartened by the weird timing of issuing a rebuttal of sorts before Simon was invited to present in the first place. That's not really debate.

Except my point was always Simon declined using the webform (as well as Change.org) after he knew it existed (as our President reported) and even gave reasons to some of us why he did that. No one I'm aware of from Council has ever claimed he rejected it before he started the petition.

I totally disagree what the President asked him was nonsense, what subsequently happened with extra work for staff Simon and quite a few members who signed shows it was (at a minimum) reasonable advice.

Council understand their role. If Council were required to support any members motion there would never be any need to have the 0.5% rule for submission. We are tasked to do our best as well informed elected representatives for the members we represent.

Council encourages debate on a subsidiary but a binding vote on Simon's specific subsidiary motion has potential for real risks, real extra costs and reduction in rights of Competition Climbers that Council clearly feel most members would want to avoid.

...and Council doesn't trust "most" members to vote accordingly?

I think I might have to make the change. It definitely feels like the BMC are treating their members as consumers now, and I might as well take my custom elsewhere. Maybe I will join the ramblers for access issues and MS for insurance and Scottish access issues.

Agreed. But when you post things like “which he declined to use” it makes it sounds like that’s exactly what you’re alleging. So for Pete’s sake please stop!

Oh no doubt the petition caused a whole heap of extra work for Simon and the hard working people at the BMC. But this was a problem of the BMC’s making (they didn’t publicise the form well enough), and the farcical solution to the problem was once again, the BMCs mess (FWIW a Python script / Pandas library would have been my approach).

Yet you’ve blamed Simon for not using the form he didn’t know about, and Change.org for how they collect postcode info.  

I’d never have in a million years have suggested Simon go about trying to contact the members who signed and chase them up for their membership numbers. Bit of a GDPR nightmare that…

And then there’s the “paper” the latest instalment in this car crash.  

I think we’re verging on omnishambles.

Thank goodness for the paper. Without it people might vote for something they don’t understand and is undeliverable as stated, resulting in incredibly difficult consequences most people weren’t aware of. It reminds me of some other vote that took place in the UK … can’t quite recall what it was about.

Yes, but when people who are perceived to be in position of trust and authority present opinion as fact bad things can happen.

Remind you of anything?

The BMC has c. 4,500 members under 18. Nearly 3,000 of them are in the 14-16 group*

I couldn't quite understand those numbers but then it was pointed out to me that many of the keen regional youth competitors drop out when they reach the upper age of 16+ (and exams kick in!).

*Staff kindly dug out the numbers out inform work being done on a proposal to reduce the voting age to 16.

I've been holding my peace so far. I'm currently in the south of France and have tried to join in two BMC meetings in the last few days, with limited success, on a dodgy phone signal.

I used the phrase 'constructive schizophrenia' at an MC meeting a while ago to try to describe exactly this; we may, sometimes, need to uphold the right of members to present resolutions even if we, personally, do not agree with them and would vote against. 

There is, of course, a counter argument that if MC 'approves' a resolution to go to AGM then it could be construed as support for the content of the resolution when that is not the case.

I will only speak for myself, but I am very unhappy about the way this has unfolded and I feel compromised. I will certainly express my unhappiness at the next MC meeting on the 14th May. I'm afraid I will not express it here or other social media. I hope you will understand that?

I don't want to join in the general debate right now - a lot of it (not you personally @Alphahacker) feels like it is getting very angry and personal.

But I do think that it is worth linking to my earlier post (talking to a non climbing Olympian and now elite coach around why NGBs are sometimes reticent to use all their places at every competition.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/crag_access/what_is_gb_climbing_and_how_d...

I'm not taking a view on whether this has been the case with GBC - I don't know enough about the precise circumstances. But I think that it is worth highlighting for context, if only to give a flavour of some of the issues that an NGB has to face.

Thanks. I think we actually have enough talent to use all the places and definitely there’s enough staff! And parents would subsidise (and have subsidised) coaches travel costs if it came to that. Even so, you are right that there might be justifiable reasons to not fill literally every single place, but our numbers relative to comparable nations are pretty bad. In junior lead for example (ie a two year age cohort) we’ve picked just a single female athlete for the team. This means that only she can compete at all for the whole year. Nobody else can attend anything, for the entire season - it wrecks athlete progress, especially since there’s virtually nothing comparable to do domestically. So, I agree the points in the previous post you linked aren’t unreasonable, but what’s going on with GBC is very much a deliberate choice (for which I argue they don’t have a moral mandate when the vast majority of the community is aligned against - see LONC), not something caused by limited staff numbers or cost. It’s slightly paradoxical because parents and athletes basically shout “look, we’ll pay for the coaches if we have to!” but that’s more because (IMO) there’s a suspicion that cost has got nothing to do with it (an FTE salary dwarfs European travel costs) so it’s more about trying to dismiss that argument at least. That’s when people switch to saying it’s about “performance standards”, but if you understand the sport their arguments and implementation of standards make little to no sense so in the end it just feels like they’re saying “look, we get too tired and don’t want to go and that’s that” and then retro-fitting whatever explanation they think they can get away with. That’s almost certainly an unfair perception (at least in part and at least for many coaches) but it’s how it comes across. They’ve been trying to come with justifications for reducing the quota usage for 2 or 3 years now and in my experience almost nobody has been convinced by any of the stories. Tbf, I do know a couple of parents who think it’s OK, but it’s a tiny minority as far as I can tell (number backed up by the LONC covering a majority of existing selected athletes at the time.)

I do, completely. Without knowing who said what in those smoke-filled rooms it's impossible to credit where it's due. And it's right that up to a point what's said in there stays in there.

I'm sure the MC isn't unanimous, but from the outside we're only able to judge it and its outcomes as a single entity.

I think (hope) I've expressed enough gratitude for the clarity on the positions you've (individually) expressed on here. For what it's worth my opinion is that you've made the right noises throughout, and I appreciate you'll have had to choose words carefully. If only I could say the same of the rest of the (leadership of the) organisation.

Many climbers at the walls are unaware of the BMC because the BMC does little to promote itself. When at Awesome walls Sheffield over the last year, the teams have had a tiny BMC logo on the front of their tee shirts. There has been no display boards/information about any of the core activities (Access, conservation, hillwalking etc) of the BMC. I was told by a GBC staff member that they didn't have anything like that because they didn't want to be distracted!

These comps and training sessions at walls are watched by the regulars, many of whom are young, and have never heard of the BMC. They are a group of potential members they we are missing by being a silent, almost secret, (elitist) society. All BMC staff should be promoting membership, and all BMC organised events should have a very visible display of BMC core activities, all BMC staff at these events should be actively promoting the BMC, it's core activities, comps, benefits of membership! It would be much cheaper than any advertising campaign. There are even a few of us who, assuming the current chaos is sorted out quickly, would volunteer to help these promotions!

Anecdote is a weak argument and who you meet not worth mentioning. The BMC has sent out member surveys which could have gathered some idea of members' views but mention of this issue was notable in its absence. 

Just had a look at the BMC papers. If the language used and suppositions being presented as fact (especially in the rebuttal paper) are ignored then IMO they don't look too bad (*).

If these had been presented before your "subsidiary" efforts (which I fully appreciate) then you might have thought "let's see how this unfolds" and not even got started.

I think the worst aspect of this is that the BMC (at least at board level) have treated you as an opponent to be rebuffed rather than worked with you, maybe forewarning you of their proposals and seeing if those proposals satisfied your concerns fully or partially.

The "corporate" lack of transparency is also appalling.

With regard to the proposals...

Dropping the GB Climbing name and ensuring everything is BMC branded is a good move.

To me the ring-fencing is too draconian. I don't mind if some of my subs goes to competitions (in which I have no interest beyond seeing UK athletes performing successfully) as long as...

1. It's a reasonable amount 
2. It's transparent 
3. It's subject to effective financial and operational controls

(*) - the rebuttal paper - they could have just said, the subsidiary approach is a "last resort" option, we prefer to sort it out in house and only consider that option if this doesn't work effectively enough.

That is your assumption. I believe previous membership surveys have shown the opposite, although it is of course possible that opinions have changed following recent debacles.

For myself, I have zero interest in competition climbing but I believe it should remain within the BMC. I don't mind a reasonable proportion of the subs going towards it, although there are justifiable concerns that a lack of proper financial controls resulted in this being higher than it should have been, and better controls are needed.

In reply to Michael Hood:

The independent subsidiary proposal also presents a lot of suppositions as fact. It has always seemed unlikely to me that the external funding and NGB status could simply be vired to a new independent body, and the BMC paper confirms that this cannot be assumed. 

The latest proposals seem a sensible way forward to me. If they are unsuccessful, then perhaps the time might come to separate competition climbing from the BMC, but that would probably be a long process in order to take the funding bodies along with it.

Incidently, am I the only one who finds the references to "Sport Climbing" grating? The term has a long-established meaning which is not synonymous with competition climbing. Presumably the BMC knows the difference. I wonder whether this language is intended for UK Sport and Sport England, to try emphasise its sporting credentials?

Sport Climbing is unfortunately the IFSC definition for competitive lead events.

I actually think the Board/MC are in a tricky spot. Should Simon's resolution make it to AGM and get voted through, it would be a binding decision that would have to be acted on by the Board and Executive.

In light of this, I think the BMC are duty bound to both say what the plan they have been developing is, and point out the issues with the resolution.

Simon's resolution has been accompanied by a statements of a lot of supposed benefits but none of the negatives. Someone has to point out the dangers, some of which are probably unknown to Simon/us, the general membership.

No it does not just refer to lead climbing, Sport Climbing = competition climbing. Lead climbing is called Lead.

Part of the confusion about core BMC funding to the Comps area is some forget that for quite a while we have had 1.5 FTE staffing for that area, plus the IFSC costs and some contract staff acting as coaches. This covered the England and Wales Youth Comps and Para Comps (but also elite comps, prior to grant income). To a small number of members who did know that situation, and opposed it, that was always way too much. I raise it now, as in the CEO proposal most of that funding will move to the second departmental section, away from the elite sport climbing bouldering and speed comps (where ring fencing would be much stricter). Board and Council can always approve a cost benefit case for exceptional expenditure (as they did for the Ratho comp).

Yet:

The Board and Council want the same ringfencing problems fixing as Simon does. The worry is the subsidiary will disadvantage funding due to increased running costs and reduce equity of treatment of BMC comp members. All this at significant transition cost and risk.

I agree the shared benefits to ringfencing (and would add some governance positives) of a subsidiary should have been stated in that document. Although a subsidiary could have been a 'worst case' future position to keep comps in the BMC, Simon's preferred model might not be feasible in that way. He prefers an initial BMC core subsidy phased out to below past funding levels: hence relying on sponsorship income (etc.) to fill the gap: which is no way to fund core organisational costs..... I just can't see that being agreed by funders, partners or the members involved.

I'd add Simon got to see the new CEO individually before most BMC staff and volunteer stalwarts did. There were opportunities to compromise. The best way to cut the heat from the politics and reduce risks would have been to propose a redebate of the potential solutions, not pre-define an answer. Things were not helped by Simon only talking to his Council Reps when the situation had already got messy.

We are where we are: the BMC, encouraged by Council, have spent a lot of time validating the information provided by hand because Simon felt using the webform after the change.org survey was established was not acceptable. I still don't know if he met the 0.5% on one or both proposals.

For the future, Council have clear views that communications need to be significantly improved, on how to go about submitting member AGM resolutions. We also think some aspects of the process need looking at. There are some issues also on the 25 members Council led resolution route that need tidying up: especially the double jeopardy point, that I think needs removing: Council submission should be the preference route but that won't be incentivised if going to Council and being rejected then removes the 0.5% membership alternative direct to the AGM (some of us think the clear intent was to prevent multiple submissions of a failed motion to Council in a year, but the wording is ambiguous).

Why oh why can’t we just get a grip of the staff? The BMC needs to decide what it brings to the table for competition climbing and DEMAND that its staff in GBC deliver it. Giving them free rein to decide to pick tiny teams, miss a load of comps etc has been a disaster, which despite delivering far less for athletes has cost a load more - it’s incredible really. Just stop the tail wagging the dog and 80% of the problems go away. If the BMC wants to be an NGB that only lets a tiny number of ready-made athletes go to comps, then there’s no point the BMC being involved. Basically, the idea seems to be that if you’re not nailed-on for a high ranking you don’t even get to go. There’s next to naff-all you can do in this country to get that level without competing internationally in the first place. Massively so in lead. With proper team sizes the BMC *could* be a cost effective way for people to develop experience on world class routes in competitive environments. The elitism is the opposite of what the BMC should be about. Splitting is no solution (unless the BMC refuses to change and actually impose leadership on its staff, in which case, it’s useless anyway, just get out of the sport - it can’t be worse elsewhere). It just needs proper leadership and standing up to people who want to do something entirely at odds with BMC and most of the community’s ethos. Simon’s proposals will be disastrous for the BMC, but the BMC needs to come with some actions, not just words, to make sure the comp community doesn’t accidentally vote to join in the destruction. It just had a perfect opportunity to do so with the CCPG review of selection. And completely wasted it. You couldn’t make it up sometimes.

My apologies... the point I was trying to make is although it doesn't fit with our BMC nomenclature it's not a BMC choice of definition.

What rubbish. Anecdote is not evidence. I can well believe your climbing social circle may think this but that is no more relevant than me saying the opposite. If you want comp climbing "expelled" from the BMC, that's fine, but that is NOT what the resolution is seeking to do.

Personally, I do not compete, my children don't compete, I have no interaction with the competition world bar watching comp highlights on YouTube/seeing clips on social media occasionally and marveling at the climbers' athleticism. Despite this, I DO want the competition climbing NGB role to be held by the BMC and I'm happy for a portion of my subs to support that.

What I don't support is GB climbing not working within budgets and athletes feeling letdown. The BMC proposal seems to be addressing these issues. I don't know whether it will address the athletes' issues, but it does seem to hint at better financial control.

Re the resolution proposed, I side with the many athlete/athlete parents opinions, in that I don't like its "have your cake and eat it approach".

In my opinion, we keep comp climbing in the BMC, support it appropriately and shoulder the risk as required. We should be a broad church and comp climbing, though a small/niche part of our 'religion' is definitely in the congregation and we should treat them as such. Should the BMC fail, and I really hope they don't, to deliver, then at that point, we probably have to let comp climbing head off on its own (which will see them subsumed by UK Sport I assume). Should that happen, we will all be poorer for it.

The resolution feels like it is trying to milk comp climbing for any benefits it can bring to the wider BMC but shouldering none of the responsibility to support it and removing the voice of the comp climbers from the wider BMC. It's for this reason I don't support it.

In a bizzare way it was actually the BMC's choice of nomenclature, or more accurately the group of BMC grandees that dominated the UIAA at the time of the split of what became the IFSC from the UIAA.

Those grandees (Mac, Mark Vallance, Bob Pettigrew and Alan Blackshaw) objected to the new body being called the International Climbing Federation so a compromise was struck that ended up with the name IFSC. Note that the use of the word Competion was never on the table because , as the IOC and others pointed out, there is not a single international federation that uses that word even though the vast majority of federations represent competive sport.

Quite a few of us on Council felt very uncomfortable with the percived 'elitism' aspect of not filling large numbers of quota places and what might be seen as overly restrictive selection methods. It also appeared to contradict an aim to become a leading nation in a fairly short time span. Also, members have a right to raise concerns with us.... and there have been many. Council expect common strategic concerns we pass on to be looked at fairly, and changes to be made if necessary. Non selected UK athletes performing well, against overseas IFSC comp finalists and high placed semifinalists, clearly indicate a sensible balance wasn't reached in selection policy before.

Yet, it's for the Board to confirm strategy (based on consulting staff, Council and stakeholders)  and senior management to implement it. Tails can't wag a dog if things are working properly.... there were clear management problems before and faults in internal governance process.... Council expect better now on behalf of members.

Maybe it's time a few more ex athletes, or parents (those who are no longer very busy funding and driving kids everywhere), stood for Council or area roles. In the meantime, Council is still the best route to enact constructive change. The Indoor Climbing Nationally Elected Climbing rep, Stuart Holmes, is certainly working hard on issues, but all area reps should be aware of these as well (many already are).

The opacity of irony that the S in IFSC stands for Sport because of past BMC pressure  !!??

Thanks. Athletes and parents have been fighting this battle for at least two years, raising the issues over and over again, culminating in the LONC. We’re now past that and somehow in an even worse position. It feels hopeless because no matter what the mechanism, the BMC just refuses to pull GBC into line. I’m not sure how more recommendation via council will make any difference (not that we’re not grateful for trying, it’s just nothing happens). The other problem is that it’s all ponderously slow. How many young people have already lost their chance of success in the last few years? How long does this go on for? It’s incredibly fast moving, you can’t just have an athlete miss a year or two while people get stuff sorted out - it could make the difference between a career or not. That’s why, although I agree that one might not fill every single quota place as a matter of course, it should probably be enacted like that as an emergency measure until GBC is sorted out. It’s better to err on the side of opportunity rather than cast great climbers aside. Obviously, nobody is asking for people to go who would be way out of their depth, but that’s a red herring put forward as a fake post-hoc justification of policy - every category could be filled with competent athletes, we’re lucky in that respect.

The resolution does not stop the BMC holding the NGB role. I’m happy for a portion of my subs to support it too - just not a massive portion and an amount that is only just beginning to be revealed. It is also not unreasonable to put GBC on a path where it supports itself financially 

That’s a pretty low bar to clear

I think it’s good all round and I was originally looking at it from the GBC perspective. Not everyone can see or agree with that. 

As I’ve said before I would happier if it was entirely independent and a BMC partner but I don’t think that’s politically possible at the moment so this is a compromise from my POV. I think it responsible to have a declining level of support so it can stand on its own feet. Well past time to cut the apron strings

"How many young people have already lost their chance of success in the last few years?"

Having a 16 year old say how this impacted him at the AGM last year seemed to me to change minds on Council more than anything else. Please don't give up engaging with process whilst making your pleas online.

I heard about that - it’s brave. As you can imagine it’s challenging for athletes themselves to speak out: the selected ones are terrified of infringing their athlete agreement or just trigging bias (unconscious bias even) and when unselected athletes speak up it can be dismissed as sour grapes. This extends to parents, who whilst not bound by the agreement are still pretty nervous of backlash. That’s why you can pretty much guarantee a count of known ‘complainers’ is a big underestimate of the true strength of feeling. That so many athletes signed the LONC was absolutely remarkable in the circumstances. For balance, there are definitely a couple or so voices who think GBC are doing OK but my experience at least is that those voices are people who perhaps don’t consider the athlete concerned to be at any risk of deselection. Obviously so many stakeholders won’t be 100% aligned on every issue but the general feeling is extremely clear.

Absolutely.

I think this is a really fundamental and important issue. It needs to be debated properly, and if the subsidiary motion, in Offwidth's words, "has potential for real risks, real extra costs and reduction in rights of Competition Climbers that Council clearly feel most members would want to avoid", then put it to the vote of members and it will fail. I attended the SE Area meeting yesterday by Zoom - I live a long way from London - hoping to gain some insight. There was very little discussion on this sadly. I did learn that there was to be a pre-AGM members forum on 21 May which I shall endeavour to attend as well. I want to be informed, I want to listen to the arguments from all sides, and I want to be able to cast my vote accordingly. What I don't want, and don't expect, is to be denied these opportunities.

Martin

.

This entire affair is riddled with irony.

We agree on where we want to be, but I don't see any benefit in the disruption and cost of creating a subsidiary to get there.

It is, but they have failed so far so a step in the right direction!

All round apart for the athletes. They seem to be saying there are two options in their opinion. In the BMC proper, with the BMC improving till they do a good job or out of the BMC. You may not think their voices matter, but I do.

Well propose that then? Slowly strangling the comp scene till the BMC toss it aside seems a particularly cruel way to choose when what you want seems to be what some athletes and their parents want, a clean break. I would be sad to see the community split like this but I would prefer that than years of removing the opportunities and crushing the dreams of all those athletes trying to compete until a split is the only option.

Exactly this. I’d much rather a straight in-or-out vote. The proposal is unworkable and reads frankly like it’s from someone who wants comp climbing out, but knows it wouldn’t pass if it was worded like that. So instead, is trying to pitch a cake-and-eat-it idea in the hope people won’t understand the consequences. I’ll give the BMC leadership credit here for making sure the members understand the consequences, at least as the BMC leadership sees them. It’s not compulsory to take it all at face value or to agree with the more speculative stuff, but they’ve obviously got a view and it’s not up to them to simultaneously make Simon’s case for him. Simon should explain point-by-point where either he thinks the BMC are wrong or where the point doesn’t matter in his opinion.

I think one of the issues (and I think the BMC might need to have a think about how they handle things like this going forward to avoid the current scenario, in which they could be seen as shirking the debate/issue) is that the resolution proposed is one of a myriad of options. The vote would be a binary yes or no on just Simon's resolution, not a debate and vote on all the options available, one of which is a clean split which is what Simon actually wants, but doesn't think will get the votes.

I think the BMC have done the right thing in publishing their own path forward as we can't have the debate if we don't know the counter proposals, and highlighting the issues with Simon's resolution, which has so far been championed by Simon with all his perceived positives (quite rightly) without the required realism of the disadvantages (imho!).

I feel the communication of it could have been better but I am happy with "the content" as such and I await Simon's undoubtedly robust response.

Martin (and any other interested members), if you haven't received an e-mail:

The Next Members Open Forum is on Tuesday 21 May 2024 @ 18:30

Deadlines:
Questions: Noon - Tuesday 14 May 2024
Registration: Noon - Tuesday 21 May 2024 (A link to join the meeting will be sent before 4pm on the day)

The link to register: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_jHjPCsvvQvSCyHdXsAsAkg#/registr...

I really hope the comp community and athletes turn out in force at the Members Open Forum and AGM so their voice is heard in all this. As I said in a previous post, it seems cruel to impose a way forward on them that they don't want.

But how could it exercise the functions of an NGB if the day to day responsibility for competition climbing were in the hands of a separate independent subsidiary company?  Would such an arrangement be acceptable to the funding bodies?

If the BMC were to retain sufficient control over the subsidiary to satisfy the NGB requirements, could it then be held responsible for the subsidiary's liabilities? The Supreme Court's decision in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc seems to suggest that where a parent company is seen to be exercising operational control over a subsidiary then it could be held liable for the subsidiary's activities. If that were to happen it would negate the principal justification for the proposed resolution, which is to ring-fence the BMC from any future financial mismanagement of competition climbing.

I have some sympathy with the aim of protecting the wider BMC finances from overspending on competitions, but the proposal seems to me to underestimate the difficulties of transferring the funding and NGB status to a new legally separate entity with no track record in a way which satisfies the funding bodies.  This is the point the BMC makes in its paper.

The FA is the NGB of football in The U.K. whereas the Premier League and the Football League most of the competitions.

Granted, The FA run the international competitions, but the precedent is there I think.

I also don’t think the athletes would tolerate it, even if somehow UKSport could be convinced. Why should they be ultimately controlled by a body that isn’t taking ultimate responsibility? What’s the BMC got to do with anything at that point? We might as well put the national association of window cleaners above as a parent body. Maybe someone will counter that the athletes would just have to suck it up, but that would underestimate the fractured state of the current relationship and the passion out there to finally get this sorted out, including amongst potential sponsors who want to support the athletes and the sport if it can sort itself out. The lobbying of the IFSC for example would be intense and even if some people think the BMC could cling on to the position, they could expect years of non stop challenge. If athletes or sponsors, or whoever had a big problem with this new subsidiary, there’s simply no way the BMC could deny responsibility and leave any liability in the subsiduary. Putting company law to one side, it’s the NGB status that’s key. For example, if I’m an athlete or sponsor or any stakeholder that’s been treated badly and want to make a legal challenge, I’m challenging the NGB. It really isn’t complicated: the BMC is the NGB and it just needs to do it properly, by tightly controlling the remit of the staff it appoints for the sports jobs. That’s all they are, BMC staff - GBC is a department, not some alien body. They shouldn’t have been allowed to get things into this state and it can put right if the BMC makes clear that the BMC leadership is in charge. Paul’s proposal certainly seems to address this on the financial side. To get the comp community on board I think we need to see evidence quickly (actions, not more words) that the same will apply to overall philosophical direction regarding international access etc. 

All true, but the FA and the PL and EFL are all independent organisations.

This. If the BMC, or any other body, wants to be the NGB, then the athletes must be front and centre of anything and everything they do. If anyone involved does anything that isnt related to shuffling each and every athlete a little closer to the top step of the podium, then its a waste of time and effort.

Not many posts on this thread have done that (emphasise the athletes); surely the LONC having such broad support amongst those at the sharp end should have lit a fire under those responsible? The athletes must have a voice in this.

“surely the LONC having such broad support amongst those at the sharp end should have lit a fire under those responsible? ”

You would have thought so, but selection-wise it’s got even worse. Not only that, they just tried to review selection and came back with nothing. It’s a slap in the face to the community after all the “listening” sessions: we listened, but we’re still ignoring you and letting the misguided (at best) opinions of a few staff wreck your sporting careers. This was a huge misstep - would have been less damaging to not even bother with the “listening”. There was generally some goodwill following new appointments, but the goodwill was largely wasted with this crazy decision to do nothing when they had the perfect chance to do so. Had they taken action, there’d be a load of community support now getting behind the BMC’s new ideas for GBC, thinking things had finally changed for the better. As it stands there’s a lot of ‘meh…what does any of this matter if the same people are allowed to make the same rubbish decisions that leave athletes high and dry? Not really bothered if someone else takes over.’

Back from Kalymnos but off on my travels again later today and weather permitting will have no signal from tomorrow till Sunday 12th

I was told that the Peak MC reps were gagged at Weds evening’s meeting. It was pointed out to me this was a missed opportunity by MC as the article: 11.8.2 MC includes "may refer the resolution to members through area meetings for discussion & feedback" prior to accepting or rejecting.

Certainly a primary role of MC reps is to feedback from Council meetings and this was pointed out pointedly by at least one attendee from what I heard. 

I gather one of the reps said that the published rebuttal document wasn’t endorsed/approved by Members Council despite the article saying it had been. 

I chased Andy Syme again for feedback on MC’s position last night by email and he replied this time saying he would provide a formal response today. I’ll share when I get it. 

Regarding verification I requested when I submitted the updated spreadsheets that the criteria was relaxed in light of the better understanding of how Change worked such that if there was a unique name on the BMC database that matched the Change list and the person was in the vicinity of the postcode or part postcode then that person should be approved. I also requested if the threshold wasn’t hit then a email was sent out to any no match names to ask whether they had signed the petition. 

I’m told that the deadline for supporting papers is the 27th May. I’ve done a lot of work already on a paper detailing about the background to previous recommendations at the BMC for a subsidiary and how it might work. If I can find time I’ll do a rebuttal to the published rebuttal document*. I’ve already indicated some of the flaws it contains online. 

I will also be away weather permitting with no signal 18-26 May so won’t be able to attend the Open Forum on the 21st May. I encourage everybody to go particularly if you have questions on the resolutions process, the finances and the published rebuttal document.

At the suggestion of the CEO a few/couple of weeks ago I had agreed to having an Open Forum just for the Resolutions but have heard nothing back on this since.

Finally it has been confirmed that the BMC has sought and received legal advice on whether the subsidiary was a special (75% majority required) or ordinary resolution (50%). As I have always said and contrary to that stated by Andy Syme, Offwidth et al it is in fact Ordinary albeit with a couple of caveats which I’ll explore if it gets on the agenda. Good to see sense has prevailed here too. It has been in short supply. 

*https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/240426_Competition%20talent%20pathway%...

Members Forum info:

The next members open forum is on Tuesday 21 May 2024 - 18:30

If you wish to submit questions in advance, please email events@thebmc.co.uk.  The deadline for submitting questions is one week prior to the forum.

We strongly encourage submitting any questions you may have beforehand. This allows us to provide you with the most up-to-date information and helps us adhere to our schedule

Deadlines:
Questions: Noon - Tuesday 14 May 2024
Registration: Noon - Tuesday 21 May 2024 (A link to join the meeting will be sent before 4pm on the day)

To register for the Forum:

https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_jHjPCsvvQvSCyHdXsAsAkg
 

It's a false comparison. Firstly the role of an NGB is one of governance. That may or may not include organising competitions, and does not imply that only the NGB should be allowed to. The existence of the Premier League, the Football League or the Much-Piddling-in-the-Marsh Under-12s League is not inconsistent with the FA as NGB.

Secondly, the FA actually carries out the functions of an NGB. What Shark is suggesting is that somehow the BMC could retain NGB status even though the actual running of competition climbing would be in the hands of a separate independent organisation. I don't see how that could work, or that it would be acceptable to the funding bodies or indeed to the competitors. I certainly don't think it can be assumed.

It depends how you define independence. Its pretty clear in the petition that definition of independence I am using is financial independence in the sense of no longer requiring a BMC subsidy. The BMC would maintain control by for example retaining the power to remove the subsidiary Board at will.

And it remains a nonsense. You either have the financial responsibility of an NGB or you don’t. The BMC will lose NGB status this way. I don’t care what casual conversation you might have had with UKSport or whoever. The athletes won’t stand for it, and they’ll make sure the IFSC doesn’t either. A complete split is I presume completely fine with you. That’s OK, as long as people know what they’re voting for and don’t vote for this fantasy world of being the NGB without financial responsibility. A body with no responsibility but that can remove the subsidiary board? Why would anyone allow that relationship? Some in the athlete community are so fed up with the BMC that they might even support a proposal for a complete split, especially following recent developments where they’ve doubled-down on the selection regime that was driving everyone up the wall (no pun intended) in first place. The BMC is cloth-eared, for sure. However, let’s have some intellectual honesty about what the options are. Credit to the BMC for a least making that clear.

MC members were not gagged, they refused to tell the meeting the outcome of the MC meeting as it had not been discussed with you yet and they were doing their level best to act in a respectful fashion towards you. 

Sean did agree that what is sent to you will also be provided to members at my request.

As far as I can tell it only avoids being a special resolution by using a specific definition of independence (i.e. financially independent but without operational independence) as the BMC would open itself up to legal challenge if it relinquished the NGB role without changing Claude 4.1.11 of the articles. If legal advice has been provided I would hope that can be made available to the membership to fully understand the potential issues with implementing the results of your motion if successful. I am of course not a lawyer so may have interpreted this incorrectly.

Refusing to tell sounds very much like gagged to me. I requested feedback by email on Monday and more openly on BMC Watch. There was no requirement that I needed to be privately informed. It sounds like an excuse to prevent the meeting from discussing what MC had done and agreed.

I've heard that it was said at the meeting that a vote was taken at the MC meeting and they voted unanimously against both motions! Is that true?     

Al that I have received is the following:

They (the lawyers) were of the view that the resolution as drafted would not constitute a special resolution due to not being sufficiently specific but the answer on its effect is nuanced, as might be expected. In short, if passed in its current form as an ordinary resolution, the board retains powers to consider the financial and business case before acting to set up a subsidiary. If passed as a special resolution, the board would be more specifically bound but, as above, the wording as submitted would not constitute a special resolution.

A future battle to be had maybe if - and it seems a very big IF now - the proposed resolution makes it on the agenda and is voted through with an above 50% but below 75% in favour. The BMC and it’s apologists is are expert at confecting reasons on why changes shouldn’t be made. 

Must? Morally and ethically maybe but if we’ve learnt anything it seems that has little bearing on inter institutional power play. 

Yes, must.

No maybe, this isn't about inter institutional power play, this is about sorting out GB Climbing, be that the athlete issues identified (selection criteria, under filling quotas, what was raised in the listening sessions etc.) or ensuring it delivers within budget.

The Peak rep was not gagged last week. There was some anger he was 'gagged' last time.. where in fact there was just an embargo on revealing financial information that was sensitive that particular week, as the BMC were finalising negotiations. However,  I'd chosen to 'step in' and  speak for several minutes in that previous meeting instead, on behalf of Council (without breaching that embargo). Then an overreaction this time due to that.

In this week's meeting, Sean was just concerned about giving too much detail on your Council motions, when we still didn't even know if you had acheived the 0.5% on either motion (when they would automatically proceed to AGM votes), and because he missed some parts of the Council discussion as he was attending just on audio on his phone and a lot of information was on slides. As it was (before I'd volunteered to speak again), he changed his mind, after facing some anger, and I then helped him answer some questions where he missed information. In the end we had a pretty extensive and occasionally heated discussion. Also Roger then gave some additional information as BMC Chair. I think everyone there seemed of a view that the entire AGM resolution submission process has been too messy, and it's clear there are changes needed to improve things for the future.

I also pointed out Sean was pretty new to Peak area meetings, new to BMC politics and had volunteered for Peak area rep on Council in the face of no other interest (and similarly volunteered for Deputy President in the face of no other interest, chairing Council meetings when Andy was away). It's understandable people are emotive but public anger to inexperienced volunteers hardly encourages future volunteers (and we currently have what I see as a diversity crisis on Council, as all but one of the womem and a few men have left due to behaviour issues in BMC politics). We also now have a vacancy in the Peak area, due to work pressures causing our other rep to stand down (and approaching a quarter of posts on Council with vacancies in June..  with some over a year old). Please try to be kind to new people who stand.

It seems odd to me, but I really apologise if I said, or implied, the 2024 motion was certain to be a Special resolution (odd, as I certainly wasn't sure on that, as the consequentials was one of the risks) but it would certinly need to be at some point before implemented, as it would be a governance change. That consequential risk was the motion passes on a simple majority committing the BMC to undertake significant work towards a subsidiary, that then fails to achieve 75% later. I've been part of several members' motions in other organisations that succeeded (usually on a low turn-out), that then triggered another meeting and a reversal... I never want to experience that sort of mess ever again (the most publicly known being the lecturers' Union Israel Uni boycott, and reversal).

That's very arm's length. The day to day functions of the NGB would be carried out by the subsidiary. It's hard to see how being able to change the board is sufficient for the BMC to show that it is effectively carrying out those functions.

The BMC could choose to exercise closer control over the subsidiary. However removing the dead hand of the BMC and getting the management of competition climbing into the hands of people genuinely interested in it is one of the justifications for your proposal, and close control would be incompatible with this. Also, if I have correctly understood the Supreme Court decision I referred to above, too much involvement might leave the parent company (ie the BMC) liable for the subsidiary's actions, including its debts if it were to go over budget again.

I concede that it is conceivable that the BMC could retain NGB status in this scenario. However it seems to me to be at very least uncertain, and would need the full support of all the stakeholders, in particular the competitors. It cannot just be assumed, as your proposal suggests, and in my opinion it would be unwise to vote for the proposal without greater clarity.

If they had openly discussed the contents of the meeting without discussing it with you first and you had responded as though someone had pissed on your chips I don't think anyone would have been surprised, it seems to be basic manners to discuss it with you first? 

The meeting didn't seem particularly impressed that it couldn't be discussed but most people were understanding (in my view), Neil Foster and a lady I didn't recognise were particularly disappointed, I think Sean would have much preferred it if you had been informed prior to the meeting. 

Steve did mention that he hadn't seen the rebuttal document before it was issued and gave the impression that it hadn't been widely circulated prior to issue, but he can answer any questions about that.

The peak area was told (paraphrased as I had stopped taking notes by this point):

Detailed financial data for 2023 onwards is easier to put together as The BMC transferred to a new finance system around then. 2022 data is likely to take a lot of staff time and cost quite a lot to pick the data apart in more detail than what was provided at the subsequent AGM and that doing this was likely to only provide limited benefit. They did mention that the motions may be put forward with adjustments to the wording which they wanted to discuss with you.

Of course it could work. The BHA carries out all of the governance of U.K. horse racing yet has no role in the organising of actual races themselves, which is actually in the hands of a number of different organisations.

There are probably dozens of examples, but I’m afraid I really only know much about Climbing, Football and Horses.

This and your football example are just examples of something completely different. Nobody's suggesting that the BMC has to organise all climbing competitions. It's about whether you can have an NGB with an arms-length relationship to the people actually doing the NGB work and which disclaims financial responsibility.

There is no "national team" in horse racing, no selection process, no national competitions, no nationally defined talent pathway etc. It doesn't seem a great comparison.

Surely the horse equivalent would be British Dressage?

Yes. I get this. Agreed my examples aren’t direct, but I believe they go some way in supporting my view that this could work as per Shark’s selection.

Yes I know. 

There’s undoubtably better examples, but as per my previous post, I really only know about Football, Climbing and Horse Racing.  Which dreamed is not one of.

Maybe Golf? That’s an Olympic sport, there must be a NGB…

A democratic discussion trumps manners and there was plenty of time to drop me a note on the outcome on whether the resolution was voted through or not which is all I asked for in the email and on BMC Watch. 

What chance accountability if we can’t find out what happened. As things stand the last annual report is grossly misleading on the cost of GB Climbing. There always seems to be plenty of excuses not to do things and save the blushes of those in charge at the time. 

Just the finance motion can be rescued,  subject to negotiation on the 2022 info. There is no support for the subsidiary motion on Council, but we do support debate and/or questions on the pros and cons of a subsidiary, and the alternative CEO proposals (or other suggestions) at Areas, Open Forum and AGM.

What are the consequences to individuals of not delivering the above. Precious little as far as I can see. 

Thanks for the correction.

By individuals do you mean employees or athletes?

if you mean employees, I have no idea but poor management and budget control is rarely solved by re-organisation (in my non-BMC experience, despite what a myriad of management consultants might say) but by a change of culture and, often, key staff.

Key staff have changed and the new CEO appears to attempting to change the culture. The effort required for the re-organisation proposed would undermine the progress that is being made.

We can argue the legal detail all we like but it’s not happening. There’s too many people already agitating to strip the BMC of NGB status, and there’d be an athlete revolt dragging in the IFSC. Sure, if the BMC is flush with time and money it could decide to enter a years-long battle to save this NGB-without-financial-responsibility status, but what an absolute mess it would be in. Good luck finding sponsors with all that going on. Who compensates the sponsors if something goes wrong? And likely on the back of mass resignations. UKSport must surely be on the brink of making a move already - can’t see how they’d let the BMC remain the NGB if this carnage unfolds. Maybe that’s the intention of the proposal? The idea is for the birds. NGB or not NGB should be the only vote on the table here, not an unworkable fantasy,

Fair point, why don't you start a petition?  That's a debate I would certainly want to be held...

I’m not personally motivated to put the question on the table (would rather the BMC just managed its staff to deliver effectively). It’s more about the people that think comp climbing is a burden the BMC shouldn’t carry - that’s what they should be asking.

There's also some of us who see it the other way round - The BMC is such a shambolic, toxic, mismanaged operation that GBC and the young athletes it's meant to inspire, train, support and propel to their potential would be better served if they were almost completely divorced from the BMC.

Clearly the status quo isn't working.  That's an undeniable fact. 

Honestly, that’s not an unreasonable view. The worry is what’s on the other side, and especially if it would just leave us with the same attitudes but with even less oversight.

Yes, must.

If you are running a sports competition organisation, and you aren't doing it to maximise the potential for the participants within the resources available, you are wasting everyone's time and effort. Especially the athletes who bust their arses day in and day out to do their best.

Yes I can understand the anxiety that a major step into the unknown would take.  But look, fortune favours the brave and under the current system we've had competitors have to give up on their dreams of achieving something in competition climbing.

That doesn't work for me, and I think we ought to have some serious conversations about the alternatives.

Importantly, I think the powers that be need to approach this with an open mind, and be prepared to adapt and change.  It's clear from recent comms the BMCs mind is already made up.

Again, that doesn't work for me.