UKH

A lot has been going on behind the scenes at the BMC over the past week, with rumours of redundancies and financial issues. Here we attempt to shed some light on events.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:Thanks for all of the hard work in putting together this well written article. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Interesting article. These niche governing bodies always seem to be in the throes of upheaval - the Fell Runners Association has had its challenges, as have others. I wonder if there's an opportunity to band together bodies with aligned interests and have a louder collective voice.

Also, I didn't know what the BCM membership fees are so went on the website to look (£33/year for me). On the membership page, the 'benefits' of this membership are basically insurance, discounts I won't use and a magazine. There's nothing on there about the benefits I'd be interested in, which would be about securing access, protecting the environment or volunteering my time. They've lost my attention already.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

What a great article! So good it's dragged maybe my first ever UKC forum-post out of my fingers... I feel like writing, "I told you so". It seemed clear to me back in 2018 (when the toys well and truly fell out of the pram over the motion of no confidence, the subsequent restructuring, and the dramatic re-write of the Articles) that the focus was shifting far too far away from what the BMC had been conceived for by it's founding members (clubs) and had settled on the monied topics of competition climbing (through Sport UK funding) and insurance (sales). At the time the glory of climbing's debut in the forthcoming Olympic was just too much for too many vested interests to see past.

Part of that re-write of the Articles took the direction and authority of where the BMC was going away from the members and gifted it to the board. There is no doubt in my mind that, if asked again, members would not allow access and conservation to be a casualty of the BMC's agenda! Accountability to members, and governance driven by the members has been lost.

In my view something radical needs to be done to rebalance the very raison d'être of having the BMC. With a weakened (or even just not the most significant part of the BMC) access and conservation focus there is no point in the BMC for most climbers. I could easily argue that for most climbers the BMC is already invisible. Consider this - if the BMC vanished in a puff of smoke right now, what difference would currently active climbers notice?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

In general, a very balanced article but (there's always a but, sorry!) re the money:

The number in bold is incorrect, you have been fooled by the fact the BMC (very frustratingly) change colours for activities between Annual Reports. it should be 0.96M. Your appear to have employed the same proof reader as the BMC did for their statement!

I am also baffled by what is not "clear" where the funding came from. After Simon's post this morning I took 10 minutes to look at the annual reports for the last three years. It seemed pretty simple:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/how_much_is_gb_climbing_really_...

Have I missed something?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Very informative and fair article UKC - thanks. I really hope the BMC read this and take stock. 

The aspect related to competition climbing needs to separate from the core values of access and conservation. I certainly won't rejoin until they get their house in order (which they seem to be knocking down at present). 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Very interesting and informative. Thank you.

One of the interesting aspects is getting indoor climbers (especially younger ones) to make the transition to outdoors.

The sad truth at the moment is that unless you come from a climbing family, it is almost impossible. 

In defence of the BMC, they have run courses to introduce kids to climbing outdoors. My own elder daughter benefitted (thanks Caf!). My younger daughter did a more extensive pathway through a local Chamonix organisation (Granite Escalade). 

It strikes me that what would be really useful would be  something at the top end of the Nicas levels. I stead of level 5 which is aimed at performance, an alternative (5a ?) Could teach the necessary skills for outdoor sport climbing - like how to safely clip in and set up a lower off at the chains, and how to set up an abseil(and abseil safely).

I have taught my own kids (and their climbing partners) these skills - but my kids are the lucky ones as they come from a climbing family.

In reply to compost:

Without wishing to state the obvious, if you wish to volunteer your time the place to do that is through local Area Meets. There are frequent cleanups and volunteer led events through these. They're often advertised on the relevant Area Facebook pages. 

More broadly, we know the BMC does great access work. Yes, this could be better signposted, but some people will be members of the BMC for the insurance and discount benefits. That's the nature of a broad church organisation, there will be lots of things it does which you might not be interested. The BBC is the obvious example. I think Radio 2 is absolutely shit but I don't mind contributing to pay for it. 

There is plenty wrong with the BMC at the moment but slagging the organisation for offering benefits you won't use seems silly. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

A couple of thoughts on this as a German resident expat:

The DAV is more federal and less monolithic than people seem to realise, the walls are generally owned and operated by the local "sections". But yes, the end result is that, at least in the south near the Alps & Frankenjura and to some degree elsewhere, most significant towns have their DAV Kletterhalle. I don't know how much central funding is involved, but I know there's some level of "sport for all" state subsidy, because private owners of commercial walls complain about it being unfair competition.

The DAV's record on access issues is otoh disgraceful. The climbing access situation in many non-alpine areas of Germany is a catastrophe.

Bear in mind that, given its involvement in huts, running courses etc the DAV is effectively the BMC with its member clubs, the Ramblers, the YHA and Mountain Training all rolled into one

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

In many sports the elite athletes sit at the top of a pyramid in which people participate at different levels but there is a progression from the grass roots all the way to the national team. Competition climbing on the other hand is a niche activity in which most climbers don't participate, and in which I strongly suspect most have little interest even as spectators.  The issues and priorities which concern GB Climbing also seem to be very different from those of mainstream climbing.

Among my own climbing circle they are never talked about, and even the Olympics didn't generate much discussion - mainly about the weirdness of speed climbing and the bizarre scoring system.  I get the impression that on UKC there is more interest in discussing the Tour de France than in climbing competition results.

Nevertheless I have always felt that competitions are a part of climbing and that the BMC should be their natural home.  However when the resources devoted to them are disproportionate to the value that most of its members put on them, and when the costs incurred appear to jeopardise its core activities, perhaps it is time for a rethink. Perhaps that means a separate organisation, or if it remains in the BMC then the financial contribution needs to be reduced and capped.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

There is nothing wrong with setting ambitious targets to build membership. However it is unwise to plan expenditure on the assumption that these targets, and the income they produce, will be achieved, especially when previous experience suggests this is unlikely.

In reply to gooberman-hill:

It shouldn't be. The traditional route was to join a club and be taken under the wing of more experienced climbers whose gear you could borrow until you were able to accumulate your own rack and the experience to go with it. It's true that many clubs don't allow under 18s to join for safeguarding reasons, but they will often allow a parent to join whose kids may then climb (the parent doesn't have to climb themselves, just be present and responsible for the child).

Clubs seem to have fallen out of fashion, and climbing walls seem to prefer to promote their own courses for transitioning to outdoor climbing, although they can't then provide the follow-up. However the BMC is doing a lot to promote clubs.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Thank you UKC/UKH for laying out the BMC's problems so clearly and for using moderate language in doing so.
As a Local Area Chair, with a meeting next week, I wasn't looking forward to trying to explain to members what is going in the BMC - but you have now done that difficult job for me.
If the BMC 's focus has drifted away from its key role of ensuring sustainable access to the hills and crags, then the members need to voice their collective opinion, and re-direct that focus.  Withdrawing membership, while making a statement of exasperation at the current situation, won't help maintain local and national pressure on access, conservation and environmental issues in the long run.  

In reply to Howard J:

I think what you're saying supports what gooberman-hill was saying.

I started climbing when I was 15 through school and joined my local club, no safeguarding in those days. The problem I see now is that teenagers fall into a blackhole when they get into their mid teens, they're ready and keen to transition to out doors climbing but clubs wont take them so unless they've got climbing family or friends there's nowhere for them to go and inevitably drop out of climbing.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

A useful summary, thanks.

All organisations have their 'ups & downs'. As stated, the BMC has had quite a few 'downs' with all the management review & COVID stuff.

In my experience of turning around a charity with c£5 million turnover, it takes years to reach stability.

Along the way a lot of good is done, but also a lot of people are unhappy, especially if redundancy is involved.

Although the deficit is concerning, providing that there is a plan in place to correct and that there are sufficient reserves, then it should be okay (but clearly not for the individuals who are made redundant).

Ultimately it is for the Board of Directors to take responsibility - for getting it right, but also if it goes wrong.

My understanding is that there is a mechanism for members to hold the Board to account. 

I think this is via the Areas (I did take an interest in the big review, but after a while it just got too confusing!).

So my view is that we just need to make our views known to the Board, but allow time for them and the senior leadership team to reach stability.

In reply to Steve Woollard:

I’m not sure that’s entirely true. I know coaches and walls that do take youths outside too. 

In reply to Howard J:

Clubs seem to have fallen out of fashion, and climbing walls seem to prefer to promote their own courses for transitioning to outdoor climbing, although they can't then provide the follow-up. However the BMC is doing a lot to promote clubs.

From my personal experience the Climbing Club scene in the North West and elsewhere is in good health.

The club I am most closely involved with (Karabiner MC) has put on 33% more members from 140 to 187 in a period of steady, sustainable growth from 2010 to now.

A Manchester based ex facebook group (the climbing clan) constituted as a BMC affiliated club a couple of years ago and has a vibrant, diverse, youthful and active membership of (I think) around 150.

The Alpine club has done really well with membership up significantly over a ten year period. 

The Rucsac Club, Mynedd and others round here all seem to be doing well and attracting lots of folk.

The FRCC havnt grown but membership is stable and the club has well attended meets and a fantastic bunch of activists.

Where is the evidence that clubs are "out of fashion"?

Andy

In reply to Howard J:

Completely agreed. And back in the late 80s University clubs were a key way to get people outdoors. I don't know about now though...

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

On access, there are more radical groups like 'right to roam' that are taking more radical action to open up the countryside. This lines up with the methods used by the Kinder Tresspassers where they would mass tresspass to force access rather than sit down with land owners.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the BMC organise a public lynching of Alexander Darwall but there are new groups taking action that the BMC wouldn't dream of. I accept gratefully the hard work access reps do but many people looking for somewhere to pitch their support might pick a group with a rougher edge to it. Whatever we feel about it, the Kinder tresspass in 1932 got the job done.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

"In Germany, the DAV did things a little differently, and back when climbing walls were taking off they made the bold decision to build some cutting edge facilities of their own. As a result they became very much an integral part of this new, emerging audience. The DAV has an eye watering membership of 1.3 million."

Interesting as to what was stated about the DAV in the UKC article, and what happens in Germany. As usual with these matters it is rather more complex than first appears. All the main continental Alpine clubs have a much greater membership to support them because of the fantastic variety, number and quality of huts that their large membership supports. Huts in GB are all private, are few in number relatively, and very varied in terms of 'quality'. Allied too all this is the insurance that goes with the membership of the continental clubs which is far more comprehensive than the third party cover of BMC membership. On top of all that there is also the winter sports market available on the continent. So not really a like for like comparison.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Quite a few years ago, before the Olympics hoopla, I, and a good few others pointed out that the BMC was already far too focused on the tiny minority of climbers involved in competitions and we speculated that this drift would only get worse over time because the BMC seemed unwilling to prioritise the key issues that actually mattered to their members, of which access, was, is and probably always will be number one.

Hate to say it..... no actually I don't hate to say it... well, we told you!

I argued at that time that it would have been far better if competition climbing had its own governing body and funding streams so that the BMC could concentrate on being a grass roots organisation that remained close to and relevant to its actual members

The time has come to re-open that discussion.

I am fairly confident that the majority of climbers who are members of traditional climbing clubs feel the same and given that many of us are BMC members several times over it seems pretty obvious that our support is quite fundamental to both the credibility and the finances of BMC.

As a long standing Climbers Club member I would be more than happy for my club to make it clear to the BMC that, unless we see a fundamental change in direction from the BMC in the very near future, we will ballot our members about whether they wish to continue to be affiliated to the BMC

In reply to gooberman-hill:

Same. My local uni club, for which I still volunteer sometimes, has 300+ members. Granted, a lot of them only climb indoors, but the club runs regular trips, teaches people to trad climb, etc.

In reply to colin struthers: 

Completely agree!

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

It looks like the BMC has gone to the wall.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Nope, just got over ambitious and hired incompetent staff. It won't take much to get back to core business, they have the reserves, they just need to ditch the climbing staff, not access workers, otherwise they'll see membership plummet and then they really will be toast. At present they still sound in denial mode. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

How does it look if we edit out those last eight words...hmm, kinda reads OK.

I don't see why the BMC can't maintain a profile in the indoor climbing sphere, which I agree is critical, while allowing competition climbers their own representative/governing body. Other sports are not represented by organisations that are stretched in umpteen different directions and funded by a membership which is, to a large extent, uninterested in competition. While it's a nice idea to have all climbing in the UK under one banner (which it's already not, really, given Scotland is not represented by the BMC except in GB Climbing), it seems climbing has diversified too much for this to be practicable.

Perhaps the circles can be squared by better management, but when? And why? Maybe it's better to have one less function on the Swiss army knife and just bring a proper pair of scissors.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

First of all, thanks to UKC for this helpful and balanced thread. Like others I've been watching this news with some concern. 

Somewhere in all these various threads (may have been UKC, may have been FB) I have seen statements that asking for a BMC EGM will be more difficult these days because the threshold has been raised and so few people attend BMC area meetings (whether real or virtual). 

I led the Membership Engagement workstream for the BMC in 2018/19, and one thing I was very keen to ensure was that area members who did not attend area meetings were able to vote.

So to be clear – section 30.1 of the current BMC articles of association says “Area proceedings shall be governed in accordance with the Area ToR which shall be published by the Company.”

Sadly I can’t find the Area ToR on the BMC website, but here is a link to a late draft -

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ulvbiwwp7ow30tttcslm8/Area-Terms-of-Referenc...

Note in particular para 7.7, which says “Areas may make any reasonable request to the BMC to provide or procure electronic facilities such as surveys or voting for use by area members in order to maximise engagement of area members and/or to garner their views on a particular matter. The results may, at the Area Chair’s absolute discretion, and subject to validation of the identity and qualification of the Area Member concerned, be accepted as equivalent to attending an Area Meeting in person.”

So if BMC area chairs wish to, they are able to arrange and accept the results of an electronic vote in consulting area members on this or any other topic, and pass the results as valid to the BMC. The BMC is then obliged via articles 11.7 & 11.8 to act. 

Paul E

In reply to gooberman-hill:

We were up on the Ben a few weeks ago and met a few pairs from uni. Edinburgh Uni has over 300 members of the MC, so they told us, and from our chatting it seemed that that weekend they had friends from uni spread all over the highlands and islands. It was great to see and hear and the (BMC supported) work that was going on to help them teach people how to keep themselves safe sounds brilliant.

Sadly that is just one section of society.

But I don't think all the youth are only climbing indoors. I don't know a single one, who has become truly engaged with climbing, that hasn't found their way outdoors one way or another. A lot of them have used BMC resources and courses to do so. But that usually involved them being told about them. They had no idea of the BMC, or what they do, or why they should(?) join.

In reply to biscuit:

Point of order, the Scottish universities are MS supported, nothing to do with BMC.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

An interersting analyses. Instead of making redundancies in access the BMC could save £35k+ at a stroke by getting rid of its diversity & Inclusion manager. Its indicative of where the BMC's priotities are.

In reply to gooberman-hill:

It's definitely not almost impossible to go from indoors to out. I started climbing less than four years ago as an indoor warrior, and then started climbing outdoors within a year/18 months of that. Now I go outdoors on average once or twice a week when the weather is decent, I've gone to font, gone on trips to the Lakes... I just looked up local crags and started going there.

I don't think it's remotely impossible it just is the case that some people don't want to climb outdoors, and also that some people consider anything less than onsight trad to be not really climbing and therefore what they mean is "it's impossible to get people to go outdoors without being in a climbing family" is "trad isn't really growing in popularity compared to bouldering"

Which ties into the broader issue the BMC faces beyond the financial which is that the way the discipline of climbing is growing is at odds with their historic core base in terms of interests.

In reply to Paul Evans:

For those that don’t know Paul is a volunteer who was part of the ORG/ODG working on changes the articles 👏

Paul

Just so people don’t get the wrong impression the route to calling an EGM doesn’t just have to be done via Area Meetings it can also be done directly by 1% of the Membership ~8000 members signing a request for one and one can also be called by Members Council following a mediation process IIRC. Any clarification on these assumptions very welcome.

Not directed at you Paul but before people get carried away an EGM it is a highly disruptive action and a last rather than first resort. There is still an opportunity for the Board to reverse their further reduction of the Access team as they did following member outcry on the Climb Britain rebrand in large part routed via Area Meetings to National Council.

Assuming this happens I think a wider Area debate should then follow in the next round of meetings as to whether GB Climbing should be separated out from the BMC so it’s growth, finances and other associated risks doesn’t jeopardise the rest of the BMC’s work. This should be followed by a Member vote. 

If there is resistance to such a sequence or similar then an EGM might then be the last resort. 

In reply to stratandrew:

It's much easier to think of clubs in decline, than clubs in ascent, because people can easily name clubs that have been around for ages and fallen, and struggle to name clubs whom they've not yet heard of.

The thread is full of fist pumping..those of us actually making a difference are just getting on with it.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

the 'sport' GB Climbing team element of the BMC should be spun off into a governing body for the sport ; its interest/needs etc are too divergent from the core hill/mountaineering element & ethos of the BMC . Sure some members cross over do both; but no more so than members who walkc/climb and also downhill ski. Or active Alpinists being in the BMC and the Alpine Club. 

Secondly the BMC ( and many other organisations!) should stop obsessing over growth and instead focus on serving its current members well. Membership will grow organically if it does. 75000 members is a powerful/sufficient voice. Why do we need 100k ?

In reply to colin struthers:

Yep, it’s sad ain’t it.

UK Sport money has twisted what was once “our” BMC. It is no longer, in truth, run for and by its members. 😟 Vested interests have taken authority, accountability, and strategic direction away from the members. 

In reply to rockcat:

I can see the words 'diversity' and 'inclusion' really get to you but I would say one of the more important roles of the BMC is to educate people and outdoor groups about the outdoors - particularly those that don't have much or any experience. 

Please also remember that singling out specific people for losing their jobs on a public forum is incredibly rude and adds to a great deal of stress that the staff are already experiencing.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Kudos for the measured introduction.

A lot has been written by cleverer people than me, all I'd add is that this is an excellent way of p*ssing off the people working for free, doing great work locally. Arguably the core of access work, needing professional backup when required.

In reply to jezb1:

Yes, but that's normally only one or two days and paid for, not every weekend for three years that belonging to a club would enable

In reply to Andy Moles:

Fair enough. I obviously didn’t know that. 
My point wasn’t so much about the BMC issue but that there are still LOTS of young people getting into outdoor climbing and not just bouldering.

I know the two local uni’s to me are well supported in training and resources by the BMC though. 
That may seem like I’m sticking up for the BMC. I’m not. I’ve had the experience of working with them in a couple of roles and it’s never been good. 

In reply to biscuit:

Absolutely. I got into climbing through EUMC myself (17+ years ago...jesus) and I believe the club is bigger and better organised now than it was then.

In reply to Howard J:

Is that actually what's happening, though? From the UKC article it looks like:
* the BMC increased the size of its staff, including in access and conservation roles, based on wildly optimistic plans to increase the number of members

* they didn't increase the number as members as much as they hoped, so they have to partially un-increase the size of it's staff (so as to speak), including in access and conservation roles

* they still intend to end up with a bigger access and conservation team than they had before

* the comp climbing side of things has been largely unaffected by this because the bulk of its money comes from government funding

* there are criticisms of how the comp side of things is being run, but that's basically a separate problem.

Have I missed anything? Because from what I've seen there, it doesn't feel like the "core activities" are being jeopardized particularly, and certainly not by the inclusion of comp climbing in the BMC's remit, and it feels like quite a lot of people on here are jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on their pre-existing views about comp climbing...

In reply to Ramblin dave:

To be clear, I'm not saying that everything's rosey and there's no cause for concern, just that "THE OBSESSION WITH SPORT CLIMBING IS KILLING THE BMC AS WE KNOW IT" doesn't seem to be a particularly justifiable response, at least based on what I've seen so far... 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Excellent, well balanced article, well worth the time it's taken to research it. Thank you UKC.

It seems that whereas the BMC's access, conservation and other work supporting clubs and outdoor climbers and hillwalkers is entirely funded from member subscriptions, competitions (the GB Climbing arm of the BMC) is part funded by grant income and part by member subscriptions. The ratio of 85%/15% is mentioned. 

I don't know how this 85%/15% ratio is arrived at or justified, but I would make a suggestion that the proportion of overall membership-derived income that goes to GB Climbing should not exceed the proportion of the membership that actually participates in GB Climbing supported activities: ie competitions themselves and talent development programmes. I would assume that this amounts to far less than the current 15% of GB Climbing's budget. 

It's purely my own view, but much as I like to see GB competition climbers doing well, I don't feel that their success actually benefits my own climbing and hillwalking in any meaningful way. And, let's not forget that I'm contributing through taxation to the government grants that GB Climbing receives anyway. 

In other sports, elite success generates more grass-roots involvement which benefits participants at all levels. But that's not quite how it works in outdoor climbing. We use a finite natural resource - the rock and the mountains - and while, to flourish, our pastime does need new entrants to replace those getting long in the tooth like me, it doesn't need any substantial net increase in participation. I'd never want to turn away new keen climbers, and will always try to support them in our club, but I wouldn't see a consequent increase in participation as an obviously beneficial outcome that justifies part of my BMC membership subscription being channeled to supporting elite competition. 

I'm planning to attend our next BMC Area meeting and will make the point that I would prefer none of my own BMC membership fee to be spent supporting GB Climbing.

Martin

In reply to rockcat:

the 1950s called, they want their lack of diversity and inclusion back....

In reply to Ramblin dave:

The stated deficit if actions including reducing the size of the Access team (from 7 to 4) weren’t taken is said to be £300k by Dave Turnbull. The cost of GB Climbing to the BMC after grants and income are deducted was stated in the 2020 Annual Report as £286k and in the 2021 as £327k. This metric wasn’t included in the latest 2022 report but I’ve seen an estimate of £530k. Crudely speaking take out GB Climbing and there is a surplus and no need for redundancies in the Access team. 

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I think a lot of people have been jumping to conclusions, warranted or not, because the BMC failed to inform its membership for several days, so speculation and rumour were inevitable.

The fact remains is that cuts are having to be made across all the BMC's core areas, and it seems likely that this will result in a reduction in services.  Even if the access work can be maintained or even increased, to what extent will this be possible only because other areas have been cut? I don't think we know enough at the moment to really understand it. However the fact that these cuts are having to be made at all is deeply concerning, and not only because of the impact on the staff affected by it.

Is it purely an unfortunate coincidence that the BMC's insurance website is down for maintenance, and we are being directed to a third-party site which covers general adventure travel and which does not instil confidence that they really understand climbing and mountaineering?

The cost to the BMC of supporting competition climbing was £180k. As someone else said, that is not a vast sum in the scheme of things. Nevertheless it accounts for two thirds of the total financial deficit, and all for an aspect of climbing which I strongly suspect is of little or no interest to the majority of its members. 

My own pre-existing views about comp climbing were, and remain, that it is just one of many aspects of climbing and that its natural home is in the BMC.  Whether I personally take any interest in it is not a factor. However if the costs of supporting it are wildly disproportionate to the value its members put on it, and if it is contributing significantly to what appears to be a financial crisis, then it is right that questions are asked.

In reply to UKB Shark:

Where do you get this £530k number you keep posting?

And although you say the metric isn't in the 2022 report, the finance report shows £780k of income to support GB Climbing, and £960k costs, so a deficit of £180k. This is lower than 2020 or 2021.

This has already been pointed out here:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/how_much_is_gb_climbing_really_...

Do you have a reason to doubt the truth of the BMC report? If not, you probably shouldn't keep saying this metric isn't available for 2022, or estimate it at £530k.

In reply to UKB Shark:

For the record I should add that I’m not against GB Climbing remaining within the BMC as long it is a separate independent subsidiary as recommended by the ORG report and the financial contribution made by the BMC is set in advance and controlled and limited to what the BMC can afford to spare.

As things stand it seems like under the current Senior Leadership Team GBC costs and obligations have spiralled out of control and this has all been happened unchecked and rubber stamped by the current Board.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

This seems like an accurate assessment.

There are clearly questions about expenditure. The BMC is insufficiently transparent, and has a problem where their statements are essentially completely useless fluff. But I don't think GB Climbing is murdering access at all. What is killing access is that they expanded based on projections that made no sense.

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

It was posted by a Director on Facebook with the post subsequently deleted. I don’t believe the figure you are using includes overheads or at least all overheads. I am happy to have the number refuted. In advance of next week’s meeting I have messaged the Peak Area Chair to email the Office for the cost of GB climbing less grants and income in line with the previous Annual Reports and also ask them to itemise what costs are included to make up that figure.

In reply to Howard J:

Whilst the net cost for '22 does appear to be £180k (although assumptions seem to be being made that that figure ignores office overheads/pension contributions/travel and accommodation etc which could drastically increase that figure) it is worth looking at the previous two years as well. In '20/'21/'22 the net cost is recorded as £770+k (possibly with the same caveat as above). That's three quarters of a million pounds.

In reply to Andrew Wells:

My guess is the inclusion of "sport climbing" in the Olympics had something to with this.  Weren't we all talking about the crags to being overrun after Shauna won gold? Still, counting your chickens before they hatch is a pursuit fraught with danger and now rather confusingly the chickens have come home to roost.

In reply to UKB Shark:

Should that be 10% therefore around 8,000 members or 1% and around 800 members. They wouldn’t have the financial problems with 800,000 members.

In reply to Nick Brown - UKC:

I assume they mean the role should go (rather than the person should go because say they are hopeless at their job) which doesn't seem incredibly rude to me.

The UKC article describes the BMC statement as being "tone deaf" (very ableist!) which I imagine won't ameliorate stress BMC staff may be experiencing either.

In reply to The New NickB:

🤦‍♂️

In reply to The New NickB:

As far as i can recall 0.5% of the membership are required. So about 430?

In reply to UKB Shark:

As NickB kindly!? points out that should be -800 members rather that ~8000 members required to force an EGM

In reply to Martin Hore:

I mean I'd prefer none of my TV License fee got spent on producing Mrs Brown's Boys, or my tax on mending roads in places I'll never visit, or hospitals I'll never use or a whole host of other projects I'll never benefit from...  

Whilst we're at I'll mention to the BMC that couldn't give a monkeys about hill walking so they can ringfence my membership fees from anything to do with that?

But that's not how things work is it?  We're meant to be a society, and the BMC an organisation of members who have interests in common.  Maybe not all of us have the exact same interests, or concerns, but that's how thing work isn't it?

Don't get distracted by all the noise, as I said on the other thread, the funding of GB Climbing, Ratho, or all the other things mentioned isn't the problem.  It's management over predicting how many new members they would attract, and basing their budgeting on meeting those targets, which they failed to do.  Miserably.  This is a management and budgeting failure, not a fundamental issue with the BMCs activities.

In reply to Andy Say:

Whether the amount of "support" for GB Climbing "from" the BMC turns out to be a reasonable amount or not (and this is currently very unclear), it does appear that the board and senior management have been "distracted" by the bright lights of competition and not paid enough attention to the core activities of the BMC.

The idea of having GB Climbing as a wholy owned subsidiary with a defined level of support from its parent organisation (the BMC) strikes me as the best way forward. The potential downside of this is an increase in the number of managers compared to the number of doers.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Misunderstanding there I think. I've no problem with a percentage of the total membership fees being spent supporting competitions. but this should be roughly proportional to the benefit which members as a whole get from the BMC's expenditure supporting competitions. In my particular case, that's very not a great deal.  If, overall, BMC expenditure in its different areas of work is approximately proportional to the benefit which members receive, then I've no problem. But if the feelings expressed here are in any way representative of members overall, then I rather doubt that's the case.

Yes, there may be a financial management issue at the base of this, and that may be the root cause of the need to cut staffing, but that doesn't explain why access and conservation should be hit harder than other areas, which I understand to be the case. Please correct me if that's wrong.

Like you, I'd prefer my BBC licence fee got spent on programmes I value (and like you that's definitely not Mrs Brown's Boys). But overall, I think BBC programming does quite closely reflect the preferences of licence payers in general, if anything my own preferences are rather better represented than the preferences of licence payers who actually enjoy Mrs Brown's Boys. 

Martin

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

As a common or garden middle-aged BMC member, I pay my membership because I value the outdoor access and conservation work that is done by the BMC. 

However, this is based on what I know from being in the climbing environment for a long time; if I was a newcomer to this sport I probably would not join the BMC because it is generally a bit unclear what benefit membership holds for the ordinary climber. I think more work needs to be done to promote this role, particularly in the ever-more environment-aware and cost-conscious world that we live in. 

In reply to JLS:

Agreed! But also at the same time they made rather an error in assuming that their numbers would grow by such unprecedented amounts

Notably the amount of people climbing is higher than ever before, but the BMC is not securing new members at the same rate. 

In reply to Martin Hore:

Misunderstanding? Really?

Your last paragraph pretty clearly started that you would like none of your membership fee to go towards competition climbing and that you’re going to day this at your next BMC meet…

Now you’re saying that actually, you’re happy for some of it to go towards that on a percentage based on member interest? 

If you’ve said something silly, and are now rethinking what you’ve said after being called out on it, at least have the decency hold your hands up admit you’ve had a rethink, rather than trying to blame it on me misunderstanding. 

Even basing things on a percentage basis is nonsense. Some activities are expensive, others less so.  Putting athletes into the Olympics is an expensive endeavour involving professional coaches, travel, completion entries, governance etc etc. Whereas other more important activities, such as access, is often sorted by volunteers, so is far less weighty in terms of spend…  allocating budget should be done according to requirement to achieve what we need to do, not how important the membership deems it, or how many of them do it…

In reply to colin struthers:

Colin, it is attitudes like this which have meant I have never been active in the CC, despite having been a member for 15 years. The CC is not important, and probably never will be again. Nor is its membership even remotely representative of the "average" population of climbers.

The BMC should represent all climbers, not just those in "traditional" clubs which might justifiably be seen as having a predominantly pale, stale male demographic

In reply to Martin Hore:

This.

Until the shake up a few years ago, I wasn't aware that any of my membership fees went to GB Climbing. Benefits which particularly resontated when joining affiliated clubs were; reciprocal hut booking rights, 3rd party liability insurance and access/conservation work.

While it's great to have inspirational figures in one's favourite sport, I don't ever recall seeing "support funding of UK competition climbers" in the bullet points touting membership benefits seen on most club websites.

I still value the benefits mentioned so I'll definitely be keeping my membership (in fact I have paid twice and not bothered to reclaim), but I'd vote to drop the Summit sales rag and GB Climbing in favour of access and conservation if the question was asked. 

In reply to adz_c:

Although I can’t be sure, I’d guess the Summit rag, and it is a bloody awful rag, generates more in ad revenue than the costs to produce, even despite the fact it’s distributed for free…

I used to work in magazine ad sales, and this is (or at least was) the case for most magazines and newspapers.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

When i was a BMC member I  attended 2 London regional meetings. Both were for rock climbers. I twice visited the BMC stand at Kendal Mountain Festival and was given the clear impression that hill walking was not a priority.  I l didn't renew my membership.

I have been a member of Mountaineering Scotland for over 10 years and they cover my interests of hill walking and mountaineering, as well as other key interests of access and the environment.

I hill walk in winter and summer conditions.

In reply to Iamgregp:

So maybe the climbing side needs to cut it's cloth to suit it's budget until it grows more, acquires larger external sponsorship etc... there are plenty sports where GB fields have very small teams at European, world or Olympic level, transport wise a car works, never mind a minibus or coach. I'm not suggesting Eddie the Eagle shoe string, but it's far better to have a strong small core than end up in this current position.

Comp climbing can easily stay with the BMC, but they need a management that says you have X this year and the competency to then stay in budget, not expecting other areas to literally sack staff to cover their over spending. 

I've said it before, the management and financial staff are the ones who should be getting their p45. Fresh start, clean sweep, even if some funding for comps is lost, it's better than access staff being sacked through no fault of their own. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

I agree that basing funding on a simple percentage of members participating is wrong. Spending should be determined by what the BMC needs to do. However how those needs are identified and prioritised is absolutely a matter for the membership. Do we "need" Olympic athletes? Or rather, does that part of the climbing community which belongs to the BMC feel it needs to support Olympic athletes, and if so how much of the organisation's resources should it take? That is very much for the membership to decide, and this is a debate which needs to take place.

In reply to ExiledScot:

It’s important to realise that GB Climbing athletes are entirely self funded. Any flights, hotels, taxis etc are paid for by the athletes. All the UK Sport funding (and extra from BMC) go on staff costs. Athletes even have to pay to attend selection events for the national team as well high fees for BMC competitions which inform that selection

So the real question is about the competence of the running of GB Climbing. 

In reply to Pushing50:

As I said, management. Even with self funding athletes, if you have a finite budget for support then your can't have infinite staff on it, somebody has to make big decisions over coach/es, physio, drivers etc... maybe some staff need to be multi role, temporary or voluntary to keep costs down. Or the size of the gb climbing team needs to be tailored to meet the funds given to support services. These are decisions that most sports deal with. I've zero sympathy for climb gb, only the access staff being sacked. 

Sport funding is fickle, the nordic ski team had their funding pulled last autumn at short notice and are entirely self funded and sponsored, despite placing in the top 10 ahead of countries that throw millions at it. They cut their cloth to suit as best they can. Even the junior / development team use volunteers as much as they can, everyone can't be full time employed on such small budgets, it's clearly not feasible. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

We have begged GB Climbing to allow a mixed model where some events allow volunteers to accompany athletes. Because at present they will not enter full junior teams for all IFSC events. They won’t admit this is because of resource constraints (which it obviously is) but refer to ‘athlete protection’ and ‘standards’. But they absolutely refuse any volunteer involvement. 
As you say it’s all about the management…
 

In reply to Pushing50:

I can't think of any sport I've done that could function as well as they did without volunteers. There's a well developed system for vetting as far as safeguarding goes and standards wise, I'm sure they are plenty older indoor climbers who are still cruising good grades who'd happily help coach, shadow, chaperone or just support young aspirants for free. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

It can be a bit of a pain. I help coach youngsters in kayaking. For this I had to go through enhanced DBS checks, British Canoeing online safeguarding course and first aid course. Very much against the free spirit ethos of climbing but understandable following the horrendous goings on in swimming and gymnastics.

A few posters have made comparisons between the BMC and British Canoeing. British Canoeing does provide more reasons for membership. Competition in the form of slalom is more prominent in canoeing/kayaking than climbing, particularly amongst children and young people. Personal skills and leadership qualifications for non competitive aspects like white water and sea kayaking are much more entrenched than in climbing, I’m sure most of us would hate this to become the case in climbing, mountaineering or hill walking. However in British Canoeing most of the resources and management effort still seems to be directed to the competition side with much less interest in other aspects like river access.  

In reply to kevin stephens:

It's also worth noting that the access enjoyed on rivers is far worse than what is enjoyed on crags, the fishing lobby seems to have an inability to countenance the idea of sharing (to such an extent that any access ban associated with fishing I will ignore when I go swimming while I studiously respect them as a climber).

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles: I would love to see more from the BMC on social media about their work in access and conservation. Maybe officers doing talks and presentations at climbing walls. Ie. connecting with people. We can’t assume that people understand the importance of access and conservation, know what it means or even know who the BMC are.  I noticed when I googled ‘why join the BMC’ the top thing they have on the website is ‘so you can then buy insurance off us’. Honestly, unless I was going to high altitude etc or it was drastically cheaper to join the BMC then get insurance, I would just go with the cheapest insurer that covers me. 

In reply to kevin stephens:

We're digressing, but stuff like this should be a standard national package, all this big society togetherness and national volunteer day etc... the government using advice from respected children charities can set up a course that's free for clubs, getting our obese society into more physical activities can only be a good thing in the long run and all clubs need good volunteers to make it happen. It could even be sponsored nationally by a sports brand or chain. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Thats how it was run in pre-GB Climbing days; the BMC also provided excellent courses on safeguarding (run by NSPCC at the time), for those who worked with U18's and also covered the cost of DBS checks for volunteers where necessary (I had one anyway via my job, but it was never an issue to pay for one when needed). Mainly parental volunteers, but pretty well the whole mgt team were volunteers.

In reply to Pushing50:

Do we know each other?

In reply to ExiledScot:

Yes absolutely with you on all of this.  Like I said, the issue isn’t GB climbing it’s poor management, and budgeting. And the people who are going to suffer for it and lose their jobs have done not a thing wrong, whilst those responsible for it will carry on in their roles.

Sadly, this is generally the way things like this work.

In reply to Ian W:

I don't know how they've managed to make safeguarding so complex or why they changed the model, if we can make it work in orienteering where it's considered acceptable to take somebody else's child off into the woods alone, then it can work anywhere! 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Yeah, I'm unsure of the current thinking, but when i was involved in comps, safeguarding was taken very seriously. Nick Colton, as person responsible, made sure of it.

E2A - i hope it is still ok; it would be odd if it wasnt as good, Nick has so much knowledge and experience in that arena.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Apologies if you assumed that I was accusing you of misunderstanding. It takes two to create a misunderstanding - in this case the writer and the reader - and I would always place the greater responsibility on the writer, me in this case.

I don't see these two as contradictory. As a simple example, let's take two BMC members. Member "x" is primarily interested in access and other aspects of the BMC's support for outdoor climbers and hillwalkers. Member "y" is primarily interested in competitions and talent development. It doesn't matter if each of their respective membership subscriptions goes exclusively to support just the aspects they are interested in, or if the total of their combined subscriptions is amalgamated and then split according to the balance of their interests, in this simple case 50/50. Each aspect of the BMC's work gets the same percentage.

I certainly agree that in practice it's not possible to identify absolutely accurately the balance of member interests on a percentage basis. But in principle, I suggest, that is the basis on which membership income should be divided. Yes, some activities may be more expensive, but if only a small proportion of the membership feels they benefit from those activities, then the BMC should fund less of them. 

I don't agree at all that access should be seen as something that is done by volunteers, while coaching and admin support for competition climbers has to be done by paid staff. The skill sets, experience and time commitment required by both roles are not orders of magnitude different. As for your last sentence above, I don't understand how you suggest the BMC, as a democratically controlled membership organisation, should decide "what we need to do", other than on the basis of how important the membership deems it. What other criterion should apply?

Martin

In reply to Ian W:

"Safeguarding" is a strange thing. Apparently accidentally leaving a lone 14 year old behind at an international airport is not a safeguarding issue because she was able to phone her parents who came to find her.

So, no harm done.

In reply to Andy Say:

An international airport as in an airport overseas, or a UK one that happens to have international flights?

Not that it matters really, just degrees of risk. I'm fairly open minded, and open to persuasion, but imho being in the position of responsible adult and not delivering all my charges to their relevant other responsible adult (parent for eg) is a safeguarding issue. Where it takes place and the differing potential outcomes and their probabilities due to that location may make it seem not so bad, or worse, depending on the situation, but I cant see that being anything other than a safeguarding issue.

In reply to Howard J:

Worth noting it only covers mountaineering to 4500m, so Mont Blanc, Monte Rosa, and Dom aren't included, let alone higher peaks elsewhere.  I don't see how this squares with the BMCs claim they 

"We've got you covered COVER FOR ALL ACTIVITIES AVAILABLE– from walking in the Cotswolds to skiing down K2"

In reply to MG

Or indeed what this means or how mountaineering is defined.

"Climbing (cliff,ice) up to 2,000m

Climbing (up to 3,000m with ropes & or guides or bolted)"

In reply to MG:

You can, however, get cover for 'Aligator Wrestling' at the same time on the same drop-down menu 😉

In reply to Andy Say:

So if I take an alligator and an umpire to the summit...... We're good, right?

In reply to Martin Hore:

Apologies if my last reply was a little harsh, in the cold light of day I rather regret my wording. 

That said any suggestion that different members money should be directed to only the activities that particular member is interested in is a non starter. You’re effectively creating competing organisations within an umbrella organisation, with ring fenced budgets, administrative hell and an accounting nightmare. No organisation operates like that.

Also, just to be clear, I never suggested access  should be handled by volunteers, just that it often is. Like you I believe it’s important work and ought to be well funded. That said, we all appreciate the time people put in to this for no reward!

I get your point that BMC ought to represent members interests, but that doesn’t mean the financial allocation has to follow that exact structure too. 

Often organisations have to invest in something it’s members don’t give a monkeys about - be it a new roof for the old church where their office is, databases and IT infrastructure, or (in many peoples cases) training young athletes to become Olympic hopefuls in the future.  These are all just things which cost very differing amounts which, with prudent financial planning can all be achieved.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I'm coming late to this, and haven't yet read all the comments so apologies if this has already been raised, but there's one obvious problem that restricts appeal and so membership.

The name.  Specifically, the M word.  If I was someone that walked over the south downs a few times a year, I'd wouldn't think the British Mountaineering Council was for me, any more than I'd think of applying for membership of the Alpine Club.  Much the same if I was a keen user of indoor facilities.

Change the name and give the organisation an immediately broader appeal.  To what, I've not thought yet.  But changing the name has to be part of the reforms, I think.

T.

In reply to Iamgregp:

It is the 'prudent financial planning' that is the whole point of these threads. (Plus very poor communication and openness from the senior management!)

If only the threads had stayed on track and not descended into 'personal' slagging matches and the BMC management and communications had listened to the posters and their members then we may have got somewhere near understanding the true situation.

Poor BMC communication, allowing gross speculation has resulted in much of the content of these threads!

I will attend the area meeting. I may not say much, but I hope the BMC send someone senior who can answer the questions and clarify the situation.

I will not be holding my breath!

In reply to johncook:

John,

It would be good if a) people with a point to make DID actually attend their Area Meetings and say stuff, b) if there were Directors or senior staff attending those meetings with up to date information and c) if Area Reps on Members' Council are given a very clear steer on the views of the members in those meetings. I would hope also that Area Reps can give a clear insight into where we are right now.

Only if that happens can Members' Council really make a strong case to the Board that there are issues that must be addressed! 

Your Area Meetings - https://thebmc.co.uk/events

In reply to Tony Buckley:

Agreed. And I’m about to make what will no doubt be the most unpopular post that I’ve ever made.

Climb Britain was a much better name than The BMC.

Simpler, clearer, broader and more inclusive.  They should have suck with it, and I never understood the memberships outrage at what, to me at least, looked a god idea.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Great article, well written.

Personally I think access, conservation and training should be the entirety of what the BMC do, end of.

Competition climbing should be supported elsewhere and is if a marginal concern to myself personally….

In reply to Iamgregp:

It's a no win, every aspirant hill walker would have thought that organisation was irrelevant to them.

In reply to ExiledScot:

Given the headline activities on the website are climbing, walking and mountaineering, CWM UK might work better.  

T.

In reply to ExiledScot:

But surely some hill are climbed by walking up them?

And “climb” covers more of the activities done by more of the members than mountaineering anyway.

In reply to Tony Buckley:

CWM EW surely? S and NI are already covered.

Sounds like an obscure little bowl somewhere in the Moelwyns....

In reply to Tony Buckley:

Britain Upwardly Mobile (B.U.M). You know it makes sense.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Thanks for the article, I wasn’t aware of this. At the end of the day, it’s just maths. If the numbers don’t add up, they have to make cuts and presumably that has to be in areas not specifically covered by external funding.

Question whether it’s possible to increase revenues significantly - the membership growth plans seem to have been rather ambitious. 

In reply to IainWhitehouse:

It’s important to me, and I’m not even a member!  I have access to its huts as a member of a kindred club, and I buy its guidebooks.

In reply to Lankyman:

Bangor University Mountaineering Society might object to that... 😉

In reply to Myfyr Tomos:

Yes, it would be a bit cheeky?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Thanks for your interesting/concerning article.

As an ageing climber/mountaineer and BMC member for many years, much preferring the outdoor environments to climbing walls, I have had my concerns on the BMC's main interests for a while. I was about to cancel my membership, but having read your article (particularly the plea at the bottom) I shall hold off for another year.  

In reply to Dave Garnett:

In those senses it is important to me too, but I think it serves nobody to cling to the past when it had some sort of authority in climbing. It no longer does, and rightly so.

This does not to take away from the fact that many of its members are illustrious or authoritative figures whose views probably merit careful attention. But the view that the BMC should follow the desires of "the clubs" seems to persist in some quarters and should be squashed. I expect the CC to represent the interests of its members (myself included) and I expect the BMC to represent the interests of climbers and mountaineers. I am objective enough to accept that those two things are unlikely to overlap completely.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

All very disappointing, I joined the BMC when I was 17, I'm now 63, but I didn't renew last time, I have felt for sometime that the amount of resources directed at indoor competition climbing is not what I pay my subs for, the Olympics was the last straw, it is not mountaineering, it's a gym activity. Perhaps indoor competition climbing should form it's own governing body, the BMC can then put the M back into BMC.

In reply to Eastern Climber:

concentrating on the relatively small mountaineering constituency would allow the BMC to downsize its staff to one man and a dog, @ukb-shark have you considered this strategy? 😂

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

When I say mountaineering I include climbing and hill walking of course .........