UKH

Ahead of the AGM on 12 June, the British Mountaineering Council has released the organisation's accounts, annual report and financial audit report for 2023. The publication of the documents follows an announcement last month that the BMC had made a loss of £625,000 in 2023.

Read more

I have never posted on this saga before, though I have followed it.

I am a loyal BMC individual member of nearly 30 years - nearly half of that living abroad, yet still paying my subs because I believe in the organisation, and still come back to climb regularly in the UK. I have a firm belief that the BMC will get out of this mess, and applaud Paul Ratcliffe for being good to his word and releasing as much detail as possible.

I also respect and applaud the effort of those (notably, but not exclusively, Simon UKB Shark) who have chased the threads doggedly to the point where, hopefully, it means the new management can stop the rot before the whole organisation disappears.

I hope everyone manages to work together now, because climbing, hillwalking, and mountaineering in the UK needs the BMC.

I’m kind of grimly amused by the way no one has commented about this so far. I guess everyone is simply stunned by the size of the figures involved, and wondering how on earth it's possible for an essentially non-commercial organisation to run at “£200,000 over budget, each year”, quote unquote, for four years, amounting to a loss of nearly 2/3 of a million pounds by the end of 2023. I suspect the problems all started around 2016 when they suddenly had the hairbrained idea of re-branding themselves as something called "Climb Britain”.

Don’t read to much into the lack of posts on this article - the discussion was already underway on another thread

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

Thanks. Seems GB Climbing has a lot to answer for.

Hairbrained? I liked ‘Climb Britain’ as a name. 

I can’t stand the name British Mountaineering Council, which sounds anachronistic and does not describe my 33 years in climbing. I don’t mountaineer. I do some trad climbing, some sport climbing, climb indoors and a tiny bit of bouldering. 

But from all the hoo ha re. Climb Britain, I appear to be in the minority. 

Anyway, there seem to be more important things for others to think about at the moment.  

My problem with it was not so much the name, but why it was felt necessary to change it. My underlying concern is that some outside ‘consultancy’ may have been involved in the project, which would have added to the BMC’s debts. The BMC as a name is no more (or less) objectionable than the BBC for the British Broadcast Association. I have never heard anyone object to it, and in both cases, BBC and BMC, it least it tells you what it is, whereas ‘Climb Britain’ doesn’t really. It could be a lot of things connected with climbing, and not an overall regulating body. It sounds more like the name of a campaign than an organisation, I.e. a drive to get more people hillwalking, for example. Or perhaps even a competition to see how many different British summits competitors could climb in a particular time frame. Or just classic rock climbs … etc. 

A consultancy was involved with funding provided by Sport England:

https://thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-the-facts

Lots of members were very unhappy about it and it was reversed, some members (who named themselves the "BMC 30") were sufficiently angry about the way in which the process was carried out and its timing that they raised a motion of no confidence which subsequently led to the formation of the Organisational Review Group and eventually the governance arrangements we now have in place.

This is a bit of a red herring. Some money was spent on a failed rebranding exercise. The real problem, but by no means the only one, seems to be unfunded expenditure on GB Climbing and a general lack of financial control so that seemingly no one knew quite how large its operating losses were.   

Personally I'm not against a name change but "Climb Britain" sounded too much like an advertising slogan you'd see on the side of a bus

Pretty much all the biggest avoidable financial problems were in the GB Climbing department... financial control was very tight elsewhere in the BMC in 2023,  thanks to departmental heads working hard during a period of 'course corrections' to reduce expenditure, when it became obvious membership wasnt growing to plan (but was budgeted to).

What worries me, is so many are still blaming comp climbing for the problems. The Athletes, parents and other stakeholders were completely innocent, as were pretty much all the staff in the department. More than that, two years ago those parents and athletes and associated other stakeholders were the first to whistle blow on the problems (to those they trusted), including issues of poor financial control (despite the fact they genuinely beleived this could impact athlete selection). They had pretty much covered all their own travel , accommodation and coaching costs in any case prior to 2022.

The Board were finally forced to act in April 2023 despite, initially, some on the Board pushing back on Council concerns on finances, financial control and stakeholder engagement in GB Climbing. Financial action was then fast (course corrections) but an under resourced finance department hampered other things somewhat and they missed issues uncovered in the audit. In my view, stakeholder concerns in GB Climbing still need some work, two years after problems were first raised.

On top of grants in GB Climbing, the rest of the BMC benefits from over a £million grant income leveraging BMC expenditure from subs and commercial income.

Those brave athletes and parents deserve massive thanks in my view. Simon's proposals from early 2024, to put everyone in an underfunded subsidiary (with increased risk to the BMC and making comp climbers second class BMC members) was the final irony in what they have had to suffer. It's perfectly possible now to get back to running the department with a ringfenced BMC budget contribution, as originally planned (and as was implemented until after 2021), with good and proper management and oversight.

Eh? So GB climbing is entirely to blame but everyone working in gb climbing is innocent? Someone spent all this money and still got a letter half way through they year from the people it was supposed to benefit telling them they were doing a crap job.

I fully agree none of this is on the athletes or parents. They've had a crap deal through all of this and been let down more than anyone. We really should have something to show for all that money spent ostensibly in their names other than a 300k bill for staff travel to a load of comps with unfilled entries.

And making GB climbing live within its means would be "underfunded" but the same amounts would be fine if you called them "ringfenced" instead? I'm not saying Simon's model is right (I think it's worst of both worlds tbh) but what you're saying there doesn't compute. 

Where is this 'oversight' going to come from? We've pretty roundly proved this year that MC has no teeth...

As said on other threads, this ends one of two ways. GBC gets forced to cut its cloth by the board, or it gets cut loose completely and someone other than the BMC can have a go at doing it better. I think we can surmise from all the discussions that members aren't going to be ok with anything else.

Thank you Alun

To save those new to this trawling through the other extensive threads I’ll try and summarise how it all happened.

The BMC went through a major governance change where the Board were confirmed as 100% responsible for running the BMC. Previous to this the Treasurer of the Finance Committee was a Board member and acted as a part time Finance Director but subsequently no one at Board level as an individual had personal designated responsibility and accountability for finance. There have been a couple of attempts to appoint more senior paid staff but neither individuals have lasted long. Individuals on the Board with a finance background and the Board as whole have not reformed finance management. Not addressing this obvious oversight and risk was, and remains a major Board failure. 

The Board entered into new arrangements with UKSport to grow GBClimbing chiefly by recruiting extra staff. The BMC contribution was intended to be £180k pa. There was neglible planning and control to manage this expansion. This was a major Board failure.

In 2018? it was debated whether GBClimbing should be set up as a subsidiary. It was decided to keep it as an internal department on the proviso that it was financially ringfenced. No such ringfencing ever happened (ie separate bank account, proper separate accounts). This was also a Board failure as that lack of monitoring and control represented a risk of money and staff time being siphoned off to GBClimbing under the radar.

The Board set up a sub Board called the CCPG to manage GBClimbing. This Board was wholly ineffective in its role of overseeing and controlling the spend at GBClimbing. As a sub Board of the BMC this was a direct Board failure. 

Members Council is intended to hold the Board to account. Whilst they have been critical this criticism has not been loud or concerted enough to influence the Board in any substantive way. They have not pressed any constitutional buttons and even recently have voted down my members resolution to release financial information about GBClimbing. I’ve called it a puppet show and its Andy Syme, President (and Director) pulling the strings to defend the Board.

Professionals were recruited from other sporting bodies in key positions including the CEO whose line report is the Chair of the Board. Too much faith and too little proper oversight was placed in the way they managed GB Climbing. This was a Board failing. They did what they wanted and spent what they wanted unchecked. This was also a major Board failure. 

There was a damning internal report of the sub Board (CCPG) prepared at the end of the 2022. This did not galvanise the Board into action. Instead they tried to suppress it. This type of inaction and denial from the Board in their bunker continued throughout 2023 despite rising criticism of what were obviously major problems. The Board is meant to make decisions and take proportional actions. The default position of this Board throughout 2023 was to do neither.

You would have thought that the major failures above would have elicited the Board stepping down or at least the resignations of the Chair and President. Not a bit of it. The tone, content and actions suggests they feel zero personal responsibility for what has happened. The membership deserves better. They got us into this mess and therefore not capable of getting us out of it. 

Andy Syme, the President should step down now so someone unconflicted can Chair the AGM.

Roger Murray the Chair also should go. He is currently taking liberties with the constitution in terms of co-opting Independent Directors*. He has repeatedly misstated the true financial position and ignored my emails on the subject. He has admitted that no one person on the Board or on the Staff truly understood the contractual arrangements  with UKSport. 

Where do we go from here? In the five months since year end the BMC’s cash has depleted from £1.2m to £800k which is at faster average rate than in 2023. No one seems to know the context of this.

On the brighter side We have an engaging (but inexperienced) CEO and a new President who is a capable and has been a Managing Director in the past. Otherwise things still look bleak.

* This is personally  galling when my thwarted members AGM resolutions (for financial disclosure and GBClimbing separation) was required to strictly adhere to their requirements in terms of signatory validation. 

Quite.

‘British Climbing’ would have been received better IMO but let’s not divert this important thread down that historical rabbit hole

I haven't see anyone blaming the climbers or their parents, they have been caught up in this cluster f quite heavily. If I was them I would be asking where all the extra money they put in went, as GBClimbing threw so much of it up the wall.

They did: 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2023/09/open_letter_gb_climbing_athletes+pa...

Reality doesn't compute?

The mess was due to mismanagement and failures in Board (and other governance) oversight.

MC always had the teeth it needed if governance process was followed (and no more than that, as the Board must have primacy under our Articles). Board led course corrections to shore up finances followed MC actions in April, based on information from whistle blowers. This year (2024), management seemed back on track after Paul was appointed (and the departmental head left), from an MC perspective.  Then the Board promised openess on finances just got stuck in the exceptional audit requirements (despite attempts from some to claim everyone was just keeping quiet to hide stuff). The BMC couldn't report financial information that was uncertain. Other communication failures are fair enough to blame on the organisation.

Simon's preferred proposal was to wean the subsidiary off all BMC core income, whereas the BMC had 1.5 FTE core funding in the department for more than a decade (plus plenty of non grant funded contractor costs).

ah yes of course, the rebrand nobody liked is the reason for horrendous financial mismanagement.

£0.52 million not over a million (this is up significantly from previous years, £0.198 million last year)

Paragraph by paragraph 

Yes

Lots of missed context and out of date order... initial grants were all from Sport England. Shaunas UKS money wasn't managed by the BMC.

Yes

Simply not true. Jonathan White posted the plans from 2021, when a ringfence applied.

Yes

The CCPG had failings listed in a review report and the Board acted after the problems became evident. Paul R became Chair of CCPG and things started to change.

Not true. We discovered appropriate governance communication with MC (under our Articles) hadn't happened in early 2023, about several serious problems, and so we pressed constitutional buttons from April 2023. 

We voted down the subsidiary because we don't accept your position which ignores all the risks. We agreed the financial openness that members can now see for 2023,  but accepted Paul R's information to Council, that 2022 information was impractical if not impossible to provide in the same detail.

You're very good with insults but I'd advise members to talk to their Council representatives, that they know, on what they did. I'd add that whenever Andy 'defended the Board' so did two other CNDs. Only one CND backed the concerns that some of us initially raised and were ratified in April by a clear majority on Council (and the CND who supported us subsequently resigned due to lack of action on management in GB Climbing).

Slightly exaggerated but broadly yes.

It wasn't as damning as you make out, and it was presented much later, but it was critical in some key areas and made strong proposals in required improvements.

The Board set up an independent working group to look at the report ( chaired by someone  from the RYA) and how best to implement change. They appointed Paul R to chair CCPG which did improve things operationally.

Council felt on balance it was best the few Directors who still remain after the AGM and who were in post during the period of biggest problems should remain. However, we always recognised membership opinion might differ and that mechanisms exist for them to take if they disagreed with us. We have a lot of collective experience on Council in dealing with institutional problems and a 'no blame' approach was the majority position we made which we felt best enabled chances of as fast a recovery as possible.

What is on the Agenda you are worried about exactly?

Your opinion, shared by many I'm sure, but others disagree.

Not true. He is trying to co-opt observers with expertise to fill a gap, before new Directors can be assessed and appointed following process. The same happened in 2021 when the Board was understength due to resignations.

I' still not clear what you are saying here. It is not the position presented to Council. We were told by Paul R very recently 2024 Q1 budgets are on track and given very clear reasons why and hat detailed figures would be available very soon.

Nearly £3 million of which about a third is outside of the GB Climbing department.

https://thebmc.co.uk/sport-england-confirms-funding-bmc

Apologies, muddling my reviews. The initial CCPG Review report was submitted end of 2022 and was pretty damning.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/CCPGReview2022FinalReport_v1_b.pdf

No, that’s not what I said, or at least not what I meant. Namely that it was symptomatic (not a cause) of bad management - that it could allow itself to be distracted in this way from the very serious underlying malaise. It was also revealing in that it suggested that the BMC had forgotten what it was about, treating itself as as some kind of ‘product’ when it was not in fact a ‘brand’ of anything.

To be fair that was the old management system which completly changed, starting from the 2018 AGM. Senior people can break the best of governance systems with mismanagement and breaching governance rules (and good management can make faulty governance systems work reasonable well, whilst waiting for recommended changes).

Appreciate your answers. 

One question:

If there was a separate bank account for GB climbing then how did it over spend? 

Ok, point taken. Since I have not been climbing for nearly 20 years now, I’ve had nothing to do with the BMC for a long time and am looking at this very much as an outsider, aghast. 

presumably by operating at a loss and spending down cash it had been seeded with?

There wasn't one then, which was an exploited weakness. Irrespective, you don't need separate bank accounts to ringfence a budget if it's being properly managed and overseen (Jonathan was a Director then and was vocal on the importance of such oversight and the need to strengthen the finance team and its governance). A separate bank account is rightly recommended now, as it's a better protection against any future mismanagement and oversight failures.

There is no perfect system though: there are examples of other scandals elsewhere where money was inappropriately moved to cover account losses or subsidiary losses or other losses. Senior people behaving badly can always break governance systems.

Never mind the audit point

• We have noted within the grant documentation that UK Sport monies should be held in a separate designated bank account.
• Terms of the agreement with the body could be breached.
• We recommend this is rectified moving forwards.

As I said, prior to Tokyo the BMC didn't manage the money for Shauna. I'm not denying major problems happened from 2022 but it wasn't true that the GB Climbing budget was never ringfenced because it was when Jonathan was still a Director, according to Jonathan. The plans he copied to BMC Watch from latish 2021 also included a budgeted overhead contribution.

The audit point applies to the 2023 budget (and was presumably missed in the 2022 budget audit.... given coments in the CCPG Review I linked above.)

You know that scene in The King, when the French Robert Pattinson Prince visits Henry to try to scare him off and Joel Egerton as Fallstaff, listening in the corner lets out a perfectly designed yawn aimed at the prince? 

Well, Yawn. 

It's wider than that (see below)...

No, the MC - quite rightly - has no 'teeth'. The only 'gums' it has are that if it believes that the Board has failed to consult or the MC believes that the Board is not operating as it should, the MC can and should inform the members of that fact. The members then do have the 'teeth' to either force the Board to resign or withdraw their (financial) support. It is clear (from what I've seen) that the MC has failed in this respect by consistently (at least till very recently) reporting to members that there's nothing seriously wrong in the operations of the BMC despite the growing evidence to the contrary. The MC failed to influence the malfunctioning Board and failed (more seriously) to communicate the scale of the issues to the members.

If there had been a ‘write in’ box like in the States, I would have nominated ‘Shark for Pres!’

I think you created a powerful dynamic through social media which is incredibly important if the Board goes rogue again and the MC goes AWOL.

Those 'gums' are maybe why the Board changed tack in April '23. In addition to those 'gums' we also have procedural rights in required agreements on some Reserved  Matters and on consultation (or the Board must take things to the wider membership).

Easy to say but that doesnt match evidence taking into account what we knew when, and where our communication lines sit. Until March '23 we only knew leeks and concerns from GB Climbing stakeholders. Fairly soon after we applied pressure on governance failures, we had realistic plans from the Board for finances and promises on the other areas. Sadly management issues in GB Climbing continued in 2023: significant criticism was made in the AGM; a Council Nominated Director on the Board resigned to apply further pressure, backed by most on Council; a letter of no confidence in GB Climbjng Management from its stakeholders was made at year end. From that point Simon got involved and some of us have been posting alongside him ever since. Despite that, financial planning was looking sensible in 2024 after our new CEO was appointed (without understating the seriousness of matters) and improvement was obvious in other areas. Last month the audit uncovered issues that no-one in the BMC knew the full extent of until then.... partly due to lack of capacity in financial staff and governance commitees that the Board failed to act on, despite some Councillors and Directors advising the Board on this for a long time.

Information should have been provided on the problems to members in local area meetings by their reps from April '23 (and it was in the areas I know best) and Council minutes and Area minutes are online. Some of us have been involved in discussions on various online forums for a decade, so what we say can be compared with those old comments.

At no point have I ever understated the seriousness of large losses, poor financial control or major stakeholder concerns in a BMC department: my motivation is keeping information posted online on UKC and UKB fair under difficult circumstancs (knowing justified anger can lead sometimes to unfortunate expression); plus of course a focus on what is best in my opinion for a turnaround. I've certainly got no skeletons in old posts, and I always apologise if I feel something I -wrote was unclear or contained a typo or mistake.

Nothing ever stopped Shark standing for President... and there are still several vacancies on Council he could volunteer for.

Correct me if I am wrong (as a casual outside observer) but is it not the case that Shark never wanted to volounteer endless unpaid time to be simply a mouthpiece for the members wishes but applied for the position of CEO and was rejected (what his qualifications were to perform this role I have no idea)?

I have no idea if he applied for CEO. He was on Council once and almost chose to go on the old exec (what is now the Board) and is a past BMC employee. He spends a lot of time writing on BMC matters so he may as well have a bit more leverage for that. No one expects every Councillor to read everything or attend every possible meeting and most meetings are online.

You've made it very clear that no participant knows their onions

Last joke on that typo. That's shallot.

Well a lot of the BMC is actually based upon that 'unpaid time' from people who are 'simply' a mouthpiece for the members. It's a shit job but someone's got to....

'Applied for the position of CEO and was rejected'.

I believe he did but 'rejected' is a bit strong! C'mon; lots of people get interviewed but don't make the final cut.

'What his qualifications were to perform this role I have no idea'. He's certainly passionate about the BMC; that's a decent start. Apart from that I've no idea; I've never seen his CV.

No need to spring to my defence my eyesight is so kibbled these days it brings tears to my eyes.

You could have kept it short and answered yes and yes.

In reply

Love, education and caring for those who do good voluntary or paid work for fantastic causes.

Not that casual - you’ve made it very clear your opinion of me here:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/bmc_update_please-764634?v=1#x9...

I have spent time volunteering for the BMC as an ex NC rep for the Peak, writing sections of 2 BMC guides, putting together a fixed gear policy, participating in a working group on articles changes and helping with Peak access issues. 

I don’t know what the basis of your beef is but if it is based on not doing any volunteer work it is unfounded. 

In reply to Offwidth:

Well you responded to my post where I said I had which also included why I would be reluctant to join the Board or rejoin Members Council. 

For anyone who is interested that post is here: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/ukc/bmc_announce_losses_of_625000_for_202...

Finally, I’m not sure why I am on trial - it’s not me that’s been in a position of power during a period when the BMC has been royally screwed over. 
 

What I find amazing is even without being on the MC you knew more about what was going on in the BMC than the MC. I really don't think this would have been brought up to the members if you hadn't been so tenacious.

You're right. I completely overlooked the point on the two CEO applications; I apologise.

You're not on trial as far as I'm concerned I just disagree with you on the subsidiary, It is ironic the way you think you're trying to help with that doesn't help the athletes and parents who first alerted us to some of the financial control issues in GB Climbing. The fact some didn't want it was a point made to you many times by several of them, especially David X, their rep on CCPG. I'm greatful for the extra pressure you provided on BMC financial openness and tried my best on that from my start of Council (with too little success for too long a time) . 

Someone on Council was working on this stuff from '22 in the case of our CND (who resigned in '23). Six of us wrote a letter in March '23 when the evidence stacking up became ridiculous. Council applied governance requirements on Board governance breaches related to the problems in April '23. Everything we already knew on Council  became public at the June '23 AGM in the Q&A, in a room in Alnwick. A letter of no confidence in GB Climbing management was presented at the end of '23 from stakeholders. Simon started his campaign this year.

What Simon knew came from fairly recent (to '24) leaks, sadly not always entirely accurate ones either. The financial problems, poor financial control in GB Climbing and stakeholder issues in that department were obvious from April 2023 in Council. What we didn't know on Council in April '23 were the problems were going to continue  in GB Climbing management in '23 nor the extra issues uncovered in the extended Audit, released to us in May this year.

and the BMC would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for his meddling ways.

All very nice, but surely you have to accept that without UKB Sharks persistance then all of this incompetence wouldn't have been known about and would effectively been buried under the carpet.

Can I just say from the outside (not a BMC member) but as someone who spent the best part of a decade in various senior roles in an unrelated members’ based organisation that the transparency this new CEO seems to be pushing is pretty unusual.  Most organisations retreat inwards under challenge and try to manage the optics.

if I was a BMC member this would give me some hope the issues are solveable, notwithstanding the many concerns that appear to have been raised about the organisation over recent years.

We could do with you as an Independent Director

Thanks, Scotland based so limited in ability to travel!  

Thanks for the comments guys. I think having the type of professional background I’ve had (Executive recruitment which incorporated advising on organisational culture and structures) has helped as has experiencing the BMC from different perspectives as a member, NC rep and employee.

There are a number of insiders in key voluntary roles who are unhappy with things but are unprepared to call things out publicly but I can do it on their behalf. It’s good that this means that the wider membership can get an insight into what’s really going on rather than being kept in the dark and fed bullshit, however, if the BMC was being properly open and transparent then there would be no need for it. Assuming the BMC survives hopefully Paul Ratcliffe can continue to lead that change in culture.

Although my attempts to get the Members Resolutions tabled at the AGM was thwarted one unintended positive consequence of it was (I’m told) is that Andy Symes’ appalling handling and manipulation of the resolutions through MC directly led to him withdrawing his application for a second term as President. It still makes my skin crawl that he is Chairing the AGM though.

Pretty much everything is done via zoom and email

Being a BMC member also a prerequisite.......

Of course it would have been known (you can't 'bury' problems of this size) but it's undeniable UKC readers (and hence a wider section of the ordinary BMC membership) know more about things because of his campaigning. Why do you think a person or persons leaked stuff to him? Simon certainly grasped the information to push for the subsidiary he always wanted.

One of my first points I raised when elected in '21 was that we need better financial openness, in particular on the sensitive area of BMC core spend on competitions; when back then, Simon had already been campaigning for years.

However, as much as I've had frustration with poor BMC membership communications, that's less so with our President's words on forum posts. Some fairly question his tone but I really don't think he was dishonest with his posts, but it's being spun that way because financial problems turned out much worse than he or anyone knew. Simon says he shouldn't be allowed to chair the AGM because he is conflicted, but exactly what contentious voting issue is on the agenda he can distort? 

Not for an Independent Director - it’s virtually a requirement in terms of qualifying your independence.

No. Such surly taciturnity is not in my nature.

They don't need to be a member to apply but if they are not a member (membership is something which is not an issue in terms of being independent enough) I'm pretty sure they have to join if appointed.

 Taken from 21.11 of the articles:

Independent Directors shall qualify to be Independent Directors if they are not at the time of
appointment, nor have been in the preceding four years, persons who are Councillors, or
Directors. or employees, or officers of the Company, or persons closely connected to such
persons.

You can definitely be a member and be independent as per the articles. It would be a bit murky if a specialist or board committee member were to apply as I suspect they may be deemed to be closely connected (I wouldn't apply even if I had the right skills given my position as tech committee chair as I wouldn't want to get involved in any fuss about eligibility).

This will probably upset someone due to me quoting the articles, but they are relevant to the discussion.

I thought the idea was now to be open and honest.

From reading these threads, I honestly think its got to the point of needing to sack everybody above office staff . Only reinstate those capable of regaining and progressing  the original aims of the BMC.

I don't understand how my post was not open or honest? 

The world is a significantly different place in terms of the number of climbers, what society values and the legal environment so even if the BMC were to only work towards the aims it had under Geoffrey Winthrop Young it would need things like articles of association to be able to do so.

It was. It was the fact that you expected to upset some of the existing hierarchy.

I could live with editing out "original".

Huh? He was referring to the fact that last time he quoted the articles in the discussion he got downvoted to hell and back, nothing about the “hierarchy”.

Spenser, you and I explained briefly how we interpreted his comments. I am leaving it there.

Yeah, not trying to antagonise either of you, sorry if it got interpreted that way.

It just diverts attention and it’s a sideshow. The big issue is that over the course of a year or so, a group of people, ostensibly in charge, have lost the equivalent value of a decent house and no one really knows how. Thanks for engaging with detail but please don’t be surprised if it’s not always received as particularly helpful. 

A bigger issue is why? USA Climbing (and it's foundation) is prohibited by Federal law from receiving federal funding (sucking at the teat as it is appropriately known) and so have to get it together themselves. They pull in $7.086m (2022 audit) of which only $1.113m is from grants (the AAC primarily) and the rest they have to scratch up themselves from entry fees, sponsorship and so on. And they keep the admin costs down to to $1.08m. And run a surplus.

That the athletes have to organise go-fund-me's and so on is just reality in low-prominence professional sports, about half the drivers in F1 have to bring money to drive as well.

The exclusivity of F1 is the last thing I would want to see in any form of climbing (and a big part of what's so unattractive about high altitude mountaineering).

Maybe lack of hospitality tents?

Maybe if, at GBClimbing events, there was something extolling the virtues of the BMC (See well hidden article on the BMC site about the success of the pond at Horseshoe Quarry and it's collection of endangered amphibians!) GBClimbing events might interest people enough for them to join the BMC for it's excellent but unsung work on access and conservation etc. The BMC does some great work and it now needs to start shouting about it.

OK. The BMC is in a mess. When are we going to see a plan to sort it out.

John Gresty

You've seen it. The plan is that all the same people, albeit with a new CEO, are going to have another punt and everything will be roses this time.

Not sure you will. If realistic budgets have been prepared, and decent budgetary controls put in place (hopefully both already done) then the finances will gradually sort themselves out.

Operational side of GB Climbing needs to decide how it's going to best support and nurture elite and potential elite competition climbers rather than building a vacuous empire.

Paul has talked about his plans to members on a few occasions and is currently doing the round of the clubs to hear their biggest concerns. Email me though the site if you want a chat.

Ignore the cynicism of LSRH: all the governance roles need renewal every three years and end after six. Of those who have been there all through this mess, there are only two remaining on the Board after the AGM and only one of those could continue past the autumn.

Plus grass routes indoor climbing and fun comps.

So, apart from the CEO, the president, the CFO, the Head of Performance and various directors who have all left or leaving after the AGM, it’s all the same people?

There is a financial plan but whether it is credible is the question. Given the number of assurances and plans and statements on the financial position provided over the last 18 months that have turned out to be hopelessly disconnected to reality it is reasonable to question the credibility of the current plan. 

As David Lanceley ex Treasurer has pointed out the only significant scope to cut costs is unfortunately staff cuts. Given the extent of the ongoing losses you would expect that a major redundancy programme would be underway but that is not the case. It is best that there is a single major programme rather than multiple small ones (death by a thousand cuts) that reduces the BMC to its core work (however you define that) and provides a base to rebuild. 

I am told that Q1 (Jan-Mar 24) has generated a small surplus. However, with all the club subscriptions dropping in at the start of the year it is historically a positive period for the BMC’s finances. Therefore it is all the more worrying to hear that the cash position now stands at £800k down from £1.2m at the start of the year. Where did that £400k go? That represents an average rate of cash burn that is higher than in 2023! 

What of the reserve?. This was down to £200k at the start of the year. Given the reduction of the cash position by £400k since then it is highly possible there is no longer a BMC reserve which means we are trading on forward member subscription money.

A key question for me is whether the bill for the combined liability insurance (£800k?) for the year has been paid in part or full yet. It is worrying that MC members like Offwidth do not know the answer.

The above tells me that avoiding insolvency should be the current overriding mission for the BMC yet I see no indication that this is at the forefront of the minds of those in power. If it was we would have already seen a major redundancy programme and quibbling over budgets replaced by a cash flow forecast for the year that is monitored by the Board on a weekly basis until we are out the other side. 

It is good that a senior finance person has been drafted in to help from British Judo. However, it is concerning that his key visible contribution has been to initiate a chsnge of the financial accounting year. I mean wtf? This is hardly a signal of the true current priorities and will be a further distraction and time soak to an already messed up finance department. What this person should be working on is a business recovery plan based on cash forecasting and ensuring it is adhered to. 
 

You paint a worst case (well I hope it's worst) presumably because from experience to date you've no trust in the situation without seeing solid data/information - understandable.

As you've mentioned, the problem with us "outside" knowing the situation is that we don't know the annual profiles of the income & expenditure cash flows.

Similarly, Q1 generating a small surplus - is that a cash surplus or an accruals surplus (i.e. surplus against the budget for Q1).

I hope that the cash going down by £400k in 3 months is purely a cash flow timing issue - if it's not then we're still falling down the hole.

Good question. Don’t know 

Yes hopefully so. If for example the combined liability insurance bill has all been paid up front for the year that would account for such a drop. 

Being generous I regard that anyone left on the Board who was in post prior to Paul Davies going is complicit. How many of those are there?

It seems that this has also been the problem for those "inside"

I believe one of the key operational finance people has been off sick, I'll bet that this was the person who'd answer exactly that kind of question.

The change of accounting date will have been done purely to buy him more time whilst sorting out what are would have been presented to him as potentially existential problems. Its quick and easy to do, and is entirely unsurprising given the task at hand. Sticking to the original reporting deadline, and therefore original period end might have not given enough time to get the accounting presentation sorted, and looking at a (nearly) worst case scenario, may well have given the actions put in place that have produced a surplus (whether accounting or cash) in Q1 enough time to take effect by the reporting date, and therefore allowed the auditors to put a tick in the "going concern" box........

This person is just the type the BMC need in the future.

Two more: John who we really need on insurance expertise and Neal who has been as open as anyone on the Board, and both for less than a year overlap. You have some Board experts on these threads saying a complete clear-out would be pointlessly destructive, so why are you ignoring them?

I simply don't recognise your numbers on Q1 cash loss (and am still chasing if this is even real) but either you are missing something (again) and/or are being fed partial information (again) or Paul has blatantly lied to us. You are most likely missing a much reduced cost base from fewer staff and steady income across the year from individuals and commercial income. If Council have been deliberately misinformed that things are on track, it would likely be terminal for him. I just can't see the point of him doing that: it totally flies in the face of what we know of him so far, so I very much doubt that your picture is correct. The numbers will be out soon so we will all see... I know where my bet will be (again). Every time we disagreed before on such financial detail it turned out your numbers (that were usually leaked to you) were wrong (on the things we were actually talking about.... nearly all of the extra loss picked up in the extended audit wasn't know a out before it was reported by the audit team).

Council wondered when this argument would crop up (and a few questioned argued the change based on that perception and the extra work). I think it was probably the right decision as it benefits the BMC. We certainly wouldn't have (by a significant majority) agreed the proposal to shift the year end if we didn't believe Paul on Q1. There are several cost benefits for the BMC for doing this which will help recovery further than retaining the current reporting year. If we have been lied to it will be obvious, as we have been clear we want to see new financial data as it  is signed off, given how serious things have turned out to be. We still have Council reps on FAC as well. If large losses continued I'd say an EGM would be inevitable in that circumstance.

I get that it will take time to rebuild trust but I really think things have changed from my inside view.

From an outsider’s point of view, I’ve seen much worse sets of accounts which were salvageable without going nuts on restructuring.

Transparency is key now, as is ‘reading the room’ wrt BMC funded activities as member support is going to be critical over the next couple of years. The BMC has used up its 9 lives in one fell swoop and will be under close observation for the foreseeable future.

I can see a tidy little business model within those figures, which will rely on membership numbers at least holding steady. Additionally, theres some unavoidable ‘trimming’ to do. I definitely don’t think it’s all doom and gloom, but there isn’t much leeway for indeciciveness, which I’m sure the CEO is well aware of.

I didn’t say it was for Q1. The current cash in the bank is £800k compared to the beginning of the year when it was £1.2m so the cash is down £400k in a little over 5 months. You have probably just been given figures against the budget. To reiterate the cash figure could be because the combined liability insurance or other large bill has been all paid up front, or a wedge of grant money hasn’t come through that covers costs already paid for or it could mean we are more in the shit than you appreciate. In the current situation monitoring the cash is vital and also provides a potential reality check against other figures being presented. 

There are plenty ofways of spreading the cost of insurance over 10/12 months for a fee available in the insurance market and from other finance providers. It’s an easy one to address to improve the cash flow position. Such a facility can often be viewed as unsecured lending. Considering the buildings are not secured against anything it should be easy to arrange. 

Quite - although in the scenario where they’ve already paid up front they can’t do that whereas if they had done a cash forecast it might have been deemed to be a useful step to take now the reserve is negligible or gone which is all illustrative of the reasons I’m banging on about cash forecasting and monitoring because it doesn’t seem to being done. 

The other anomaly I’d like resolved is why are we £400k down 5 months in and how is that reconciled with the feedback that for Q1 there is a slight surplus? There might be a simple explanation or there might not.

Generally it doesn’t seem people such as Offwidth are concerned or aware enough about this aspect of financial management as they should be.

They are monitoring the cash, and expenditure and income streams against a known calandar. The extra insurance costs and timings this year are a known in that. I've not seen anything yet to indicate finances are not on track: consistent with what we have been assured, with good reasons. As such, I'll happily assume, by Occam's razor (until I have clear proof otherwise) you being gullible (again) to inaccurate wind-ups from insiders (like you were with the incorrect claim of an £500k overhead spend in a year in GB Climbing, based on their fraction of total FTE, but ignoring the big BMC core overhead costs that would be there irrespective of staff numbers in the team). Q1 overview information just confirmed we were way off the rumours of trading insolvent by April.

As a Councillor I will, as promised, push for your questions to be answered as soon as they can be after the AGM (if you ignored my advice to submit them to the AGM Q&A).

How do you know this? Is it in the pack sent to ME or are you just told it is being done? When did they start forecasting and monitoring cash?

I know for a fact that it didn’t used to be done because the auditors criticised the Finance Committee for not doing it. Their legitimate response was that it would be an academic exercise because they were sitting on £2million in the bank. But that’s not where we are now  

I can’t see a facility to submit questions to the AGM in advance. Are you referring to the drop-in sessions afterwards? 

Because we know they are professional people very busy doing a job they said they would, and that was backed by information the CEO has given us (in contrast to mismanagement in the past that meant information wasn't being passed up to FAC and Board, and no overview was presented to us on Council). It's not Council's role to get operational... we have reps on FAC and Board if that is necessary (and I trust them).

Yes, that is part of the AGM event. You need to hurry not to miss the three day deadline I reminded the thread of, when Steve asked earlier.

OK so you haven’t seen them and don’t know for sure it is being done 

Good prompt. Just sent:

1. Can you confirm the current cash in the BMC's bank account and if lower than the closing position of £1.2m at year end explain the variance

2. Can you detail the DG (Dennis Gray) pension payments in terms of how long it has been going on, who the money is paid to and why

3. Can you specify how much (if anything) it cost the BMC to send Andy Syme to Chile to attend the IFSC conference and what value there was to the BMC membership in him attending

Reading Offwidth's posts gets funnier thread on thread. Best so far this time are "it's all problems at GB Climbing but GB Climbing aren't to blame" and "don't worry, Simon is misinformed" (after similar reassurances in recent past followed shortly by it all being even worse than Simon thought). I for one am reassured 😂

When did the president change? 

A bunch of people have left, but apart from the CEO, count the names who are involved in steering the ship now that weren't in post when it almost sank.

President changes on Wednesday so chairing the AGM is his last responsibility.

Grass routes indoor climbing?  Must need a lot of watering…

Sounds like good training for Swanage though.

I think this is happening in small ways, the BMC are purchasing the stakes for the Avon Gorge Main Wall belay stake project, also PR and JF have agreed to come and help get them in the ground. Alot more small things like this, and a few big things (like not letting GBC set fire to the bank account) will see the BMC doing better than before. 

They not only need to be doing good stuff but they need to be telling the world at large about the good stuff. When GBClimbing are at a training session/comp/para comp etc they should have a huge display of the good stuff that the BMC does. That display will get to an audience that will probably never see anything about the BMC. (Certainly not from GBC who don't want to be distracted' and don't even display the BMC logo in any way apart from a tiny badge on the front of tee shirts) Lets get out there and tell everyone who will listen!

This is something I have been banging on about for some time now! E.g. How many people have seen the article about the BMC Horseshoe Quarry conservation success? It is an article that didn't even make the top of the home page, let alone the facebook page or the local papers! The BMC do a lot of good work. Don't let the fiasco of GBC ruin it. (I believe that the BMC should be in charge of comp climbing, but the GBC department needs a root and branch sorting and very strict financial control!)

Just noticed the BMC have added this link to a form to ask questions at the AGM

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdp6B-O0zMPyHwGsMrQtnM_UTbUhPVN243...

Thanks for the notification Guys 😡

Hi John

There is some fair criticism there. As the officer covering the whole of England it’s hard to make time to produce media on top of dealing with the issues that come in on a daily basis. Much of what happens is also not particularly eye catching as a piece of media - today I’ve had discussions about arrangements for opening gates; arranging dropping off equipment; funding maintenance of winter monitoring gear; a landowner requesting RAD changes; correcting a bird restriction; correcting Occupier’s Liability information on an RtR YouTube video; confirming that a crag doesn’t have an access problem; discussions with a landowner around moving a loose block; and looking into who is involved in construction work at a quarried crag. None of this is sexy or ideal as a news piece. Many of the access gains are necessarily low key and advertising them would undermine the work that has gone into them – for instance where a landowner has tacitly/reluctantly given permission for low level access. This is frustrating as these are often the most significant ‘wins’.

All that said we do need to shout about what we do on the access side more. And in the last few months we’ve had a dedicated part-time assistant on the media side for access and she’s been doing a great job getting more content out there, which has been brilliant. Like you say, this is somewhat undercut by the clunkiness of the website where new content tends to get lost and obscured quickly. This should be much improved though when the new website goes live later this summer.

GBC managed to promote themselves quite well, whilst keeping the BMC in the background (I am underplaying this!) If they had a display at every one of their sessions, be it a comp, a training session or whatever, they would be hitting a part of the outdoors community that probably (from talking to random people) that have never heard of the BMC and the good work it does.

Whenever there is news it should be broadcast, from bird bans (Hardly anyone reads RAD) to new initiatives, to conservation successes, (newts at Horseshoe) with some care taken where the issue is sensitive. We need people to know how much work is done behind the scenes, and how it depends on the members, volunteers, staff input etc. 

Lets shout about how good we are!

Jon, whilst it may not be worthy of a news piece it is definitely worthy of a quick social media post. We all appreciate what you do and I'm sure even promoting the little things a little bit, will go a long way.

I don't particularly want to suggest anything which increases workloads on volunteers, however there is a specialist committee review which occurs annually around October time where the comimttees each summarise their activities over the last year. The format of the committee input into this could be tweaked such that anything sensitive is displayed on specific slides and the none sensitive slide pack presented to the membership at an Open Forum (or released as a pre recorded video to avoid the entertainment of coordinating a time and place for that many adults to be available).

I did also note that the IMechE spent last week showcasing its volunteer activities as part of National Volunteer Week on its Facebook page (posts from 3-7th June):

https://www.facebook.com/imeche

The BMC absolutely shouldn't mirror everything that organisations like the IMechE do as the context is different, but they could definitely both benefit from taking ideas from each other.

I appreciate you are stretched across so many remit's Jon, timewise and I applaud all you do, but I disagree, many people are intersted in access issues, it's one of the reasons people join the BMC.

Having been an Access rep, I realise that much of the work has to be done under the radar, but there is also a wealth of access work that can be shared and celebrated.

There used to be much more information and access briefings in Summit magazine, before it became more of a Go Outdoors travel magazine.

There seems to be no diffculties in promoting GB Climbing within the BMC, so hopefully we will see the BMC focus on Access more and sharing the information, as many are asking for this.

Just trying to join the post AGM Drop in Session but I need a meeting password. Where is it!!

Anyone?

The official part of the meeting is now closed, but there is an open forum Zoom meeting in progress right now. All members should have received an email today with a link to this Zoom meeting. 

In now.

Thanks

Cash position reported as £1.3m which is a relief considering I heard it was £800k

No detail but being looked into

Not covered 

Hopefully members will learn to trust our new CEO rather than rumours. 

Q1 variance was reported to be a small positive (£1k) against budget. Paul was clear cash position changes so care is needed  with spot points (I had never heard the £800k before you raised it from a 'leak').

There were promises to answer all questions and I think that really needs to happen.

The civica platform was very messy... member questions were not visible on tablets and comments scrolled so fast (and locked to the most recent), so it was really hard to follow everything. Peak attendance of 210 for an evening online AGM meeting was dreadful in my view given the recent scale of organisational problems.

The open session afterwards on zoom, chaired by Mary-Ann Ochota, was much better in interactive tems but the missed AGM questions on AGM agenda items arrived too late in the session to be covered. Plus I suspect many missed the session or struggled to find how to log on.

My biggest concerns remain:

Sorry, Offwidth... is this a joke? Are you actually being serious?

I don't think you really appreciate just how much your defence of the BMC leadership in this thread and recent threads has made the perception of them worse. I actually was considering that maybe some leniency was needed but if this is the view of the MC then, well, frankly you all need to go? As do the board? How can you possibly accept running an organisation on say so following a debacle of this extent?

Like... this is 600k? That's a huge amount of money for the BMC and you guys have completely screwed up the management for years. When are you going to accept that you are trying to defend indefensible things? You keep on questioning Sharky's figures; right now as far as I am concerned I have zero trust in the information you can provide and would back him to be right over you every single time... and you're supposed to chuffin well represent me!

Honestly, come on man. Take a step back. You have to see that this is getting absurd...

I guess we’ll wait for the results on those up for renewal. Or am I wrong?

Excuse me if I feel dealing with serious problems isn't helped by exaggeration or rumour (mostly the fault of those selectively leaking to Simon). I've been supporting and pushing Simon's concerns on more financial openess and transparency since I joined Council and questioned the Board multiple times where the information we formally recieved on Council didnt match membership, volunteer or staff experiences we trusted;  and in some cases breached our governance rules. I regard the £600k+ losses as a disaster. That money could have made a big difference to the work we do. However, a significant part of the losses were due to external factors (not the mismanagement: especially the 'cost of living' impacts, which if you listen to some critics you wouldn't think existed, despite seriously damaging other membership organisations with no obvious mismanagement). I'd add Simon's questions to the AGM last night were fair and need an answer: good financial control is vital.

If you want to risk further unnecessary damage to the BMC by all means encourage misinformation in commentary to continue. I just want honest debate to help sort things out as quickly as possible. All through the mess of 2023, what I see as the core of the BMC (the staff and army of volunteers outside governance structures) just got on with great work, despite the impacts of reorganisation and cost savings (including: at risk periods, some poor management decisions, online meetings,  impacts on morale etc).

I've always 'spoken truth to power' internally but externally defended what is good in organisations I've been involved with (at senior governance levels), alongside publicly recognising what should have been done better. I won't be stopping that approach ever.

You are just astonishing...

You are such a hypocrite 🙄

Simon may not have always been accurate with his figures, but he was close enough to lift the lid on the can of worms. Where as you rubbish him while knowing all along  the details of what was going on and defended the BMC management

Do you ever think about stepping back and reading the room? 

Not your view on this room, no, as others here I know well and trust have reassured me otherwise and I have no idea who most of you are who are saying such things, or if you even care about the organisation recovering.

I've had many times in my career when I would have given up if I regarded a small group of angry people 'facing me down' as typical of the body of people I was elected to represent. In contrast, such angry people I did know (in different settings) often grossly overclaimed how typical of the broader group they actually were. It's impossible to take on political positions without annoying some and social media just amplifies such disagreement.

How about debating what I say rather than trying to shut me up?

The members questions and the chat were two separate things. The chat as you say scrolled and locked and was awful. The more important thing was that questions in the Q&A that were to be answered by the Directors were not visible except your own ie you could only see the questions you posted not everyone else’s which was annoying.

I think I was the only one who was patched through to ask a question in person. This was very clunky. It involved opening another zoom window and being prepped by a member of staff and then when put through to speak my AGM window had some time lag that had previous conversation that was very distracting for me when posing a question to the auditor.

On the subject of that there seemed to be a disconnect with what the auditor said and what was contained in the Board minutes discussing engaging the auditors insofar as the auditor said there was no extra work purchased above and beyond the audit other than to provide cover for the company accountant who was off sick (extra cost £4500 IIRC) which is not what I wrongly inferred from the Board minutes ie that a more thorough audit was purchased that uncovered the extra £300k+ of losses. 

In answer to someone else’s question about Dennis Gray’s murky pension payments she said that it hadn’t come up on previous audits because the value was not material but had come up this time because the risk level was judged higher due to the initial discrepancies discovered part way through the audit. 

Most people posted questions in the Q&A but you could only see the questions you posted not everyone else’s which was annoying.

I think I was the only one who was patched through to ask a question in person. This was very clunky. It involved opening another zoom window and being prepped by a member of staff and then when put through to speak my AGM window had some time lag that had previous conversation that was very distracting for me when posing a question to the auditor.

On the subject of that there seemed to be a disconnect with what the auditor said and what was contained in the Board minutes discussing engaging the auditors insofar as the auditor said there was no extra work purchased above and beyond the audit other than to provide cover for the company accountant who was off sick (extra cost £4500 IIRC) which is not what I wrongly inferred from the Board minutes ie that a more thorough audit was purchased that uncovered the extra £300k+ of losses. 

In answer to someone else’s question about Dennis Gray’s murky pension payments she said that it hadn’t come up on previous audits because the value was not material but had come up this time because the risk level was judged higher due to the initial discrepancies discovered part way through the audit. 

I would have liked to have heard from our new part time FD and the Chair of the Audit Committee to have greater assurance that the issues and recommendations raised in the audit were being properly rectified. 

Was the meeting recorded and shareable? Clashed with a different AGM for me but very interested.

Oh yes. Demand Hybrid AGM’s from now on from your reps and continued regular Open Forums as a fixture not when everything screws up 

The comment in chat, from a member of the Finance Committee, and in regards to the two recent resignations from that Committee, was damning. Something has obviously gone very badly wrong.

I've never rubbished Simon's main message on financial openess, just the opposite. I have highlighted some innacurate detail and some information presented that I saw as misrepresentation (information that to be fair to him, was usually leaked to him). He and I have always disagreed on the subsidiary option since 2018, just like I always disagreed with you on the motion of no confidence you signed in 2017 (that did so much damage to the BMC). If we can't debate difference hoestly and openly we may as well give up. 

No. It was recorded for the purposes of constructing minutes, but won't otherwise be made available.

I'm not trying to shut you up. The BMC is clearly in something of a mess. It is not clear to me whether you are helping to clear up the mess, or making it worse, and I wonder if your combative stance is really the best approach at this stage. 

Agree with most of that.

There had to be a transition at some point from a standard to a more detailed audit. I'm guessing the auditor maybe thought you were asking was there one standard audit, then another more extensive one....    who knows though? The previous 2022 audit clearly missed serious but smaller financial control problems (from CCPG Review and other evidence). 

On your 'part time FD' point, might you be muddling this with the part-time financial assistance in the staff team from a finance officer from a different sporting body? We don't have an FD and the Director with main responsibility for Finance was announced as departing, at the AGM, due to new senior roles elsewhere. Someone pointed out to me another CND Director position wasn't renewed at the AGM either. 

Yes to quote:

”As an FAC member I have felt we have been marginalised and sidelined…..I am hopeful for the future but that is not based on anything more than hope”

I put two questions in the Q&A* and both were asked and answered so I was happy on that front. It was frustrating as without being able to see the other Q&A questions, one was unaware as to whether you were just repeating someone else's question or whether the questions raised were actually being answered.

The chat function was a nightmare on a tablet, I couldn't keep up as it kept resetting to the latest comment/thumbs up and if I could see the chat, the AGM screen didn't re-configure so had to keep maximizing and minimizing the live stream screen.

*I asked the DG Pension and the In-Person AGM questions, both for myself but also as they were things that have been raised here and elsewhere so thought we should hear what the "red table" had to say (and didn't know if anyone else was going to ask!).

I think the in-person/hybrid/on line thing is interesting. Through my day job (multi discipline and multi location delivery of large engineering projects) and my BMC roles with CEN and the UIAA, in all cases post covid there has been a real push to move back to in person for anything requiring debate or discussion, with all online being the second option. Hybrid seems to alienate those not "in the room" as they struggle to follow the discussions and seem to lose engagement and, though present in the meeting, they drift off to do other things on their screens. CEN are actually moving to in person only for the main meetings!

Overall, I was impressed with our new CEO. He seemed to be professional and on top of his brief which, in the current situation, is exactly what we need. Mary- Anne Ochota was excellent in the post AGM Zoom though I think it would have helped if she had been provided with some form of structure to hang the discussions around.

It would have been nice to have met all the protaganists and posters on this thread in person as I think we are all probably closer in opinion than these threads imply.

Any idea when the voting results are published? I had assumed with the digital voting system the result would be near instantaneous.

I was wondering exactly the same thing, and for the same reason.

It really should be available.

Apparently the minutes should be available in the short term which is a great improvement on them only appearing with the notifications for the following year’s AGM.

Btw I was amused by the multiple mysterious references to 'behaviours' of people who have now left the BMC. Who were the people involved? What were the specific 'behaviours'? Why should we have any confidence that none of the people who remain suffer from the same 'behavioural' faults?

Good to see cash at £1.3m.

That must be encouraging for all concerned ( I do not believe anybody wants the BMC  to go bust) assuming that this is a relatively stable figure and not done by shifting things round for a day or so.

Quite. Roger Murray's  non-specific waffling about behaviours was not helpful or illuminating, just deflecting.

And what about his behaviors? Not answering my direct emails about disclosure of GB Finances promised by Paul Davies. His lack of knowledge of the true financial position. Him shutting me down in the members forum when I was asking straightforward questions of the CEO. Apparently at one MC meeting he started by saying that everyone should show each other respect than later when one Councillor again raised the lack of Board minutes he told them to fukc off! Also his behaviour as leader of a Board that is supposed to look after members money during a time when £625000 was spaffed away. His glowing opinion of Paul Davies and Joelle the Finance Manager. I could go on. Why on earth is he still allowed to be in post?  

Yes indeed. My question on whether a cash flow forecast had been prepared and was being monitored was not answered though.  

I assumed he was referring to you and me and anyone else that asked awkward questions and gave him a hard time 🤣

Therein lies the problem with both you and the BMC. The £600k was not a 'disaster'. An earthquake is a disaster. An epidemic due to a random mutation is a disaster. This was somewhere on the line between gross incompetence and fraud. But you and the BMC board/management seem to treat it as just 'something that happened'.

As for trust, that's something that's long gone. Do I trust the new CEO? No, because trust once gone in an organisation doesn't come for free. Perhaps by this time next year he will have earned some trust. Perhaps not. We'll see what he and the BMC do (rather than say) and judge them on that.

He banged on about ot in the Annual Report too.

"One of my lasting impressions of the year is how behaviours which are consistent and meet the BMC codes fundamentally impact outcomes. This is equally applicable to Directors, Staff and Members. During the past year I have seen multiple examples of where the underlying message had validity, but it failed to land because of the behaviours of those transmitting the message and their inability to focus on material issues. Going into the forthcoming year I will expect an improvement in behaviours across those parts of the organisation that I can influence. I hope that Councillors and Members will look at good practice within the Board and Staff and emulate that"

So is the take away Board and Staff good, MC reps and Members bad? If so incredible arrogance  even if he had led the Board through a good and prosperous year.  

Quite - it was not a naturally occurring event completely outside the BMC's control - everything was self inflicted within the Board's remit and control due to their incompetence, unresponsiveness and bveing out of touch with what was really going on (with the possible exception of the insurance going offline).

🙏👍🤞

Yep more of the same non-specific flannel about unnamed individuals behaviour, but it’s alright because they’ve now left the BMC and everyone who is left is brilliant so that’s alright then.

I mean regardless of the fact they were the very people who hired, championed and enabled the unnnamed people who carried out the unnamed behaviour, they’re absolutely blameless.

Glad I didn’t bother attending, it would have been frustrating beyond belief.

IMHO the management and governance of the BMC needs a root-and-branch overhaul, or better still a Stalinist style purge, but the only people who can make this happen are those in post now, and frankly they have far too high an  opinion of themselves, and their capabilities, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to do so.

With them in post the organisation will continue with the sad decline that has clearly already begun.

What a shame.

Serious question, but isn't this exactly what is happening anyway? Who that was in post when this unfolded will still have their post by the end of the year is what I'm asking.

There’s a few here whose tenure is ending soon, should have been expediated https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-board-member-biographies

And there are others that will remain in post.

Members Council list doesn’t say when they’re leaving, but at least one of them is standing for re-election.. 

Roger Murray is taking a non exec role up with B Smart Ltd...

I was astonished by Roger and Andy's behaviour last night. Defensive, self-congratulatory, mates laughing together. They honestly can't see they're at fault. They're living in a fantasy.

That was also my own reaction. The banter and jokiness? Laughing about being a climber rather than a hillwalker? Blaming other peoples' mysterious 'behaviours', but apparently seeing no possible fault in anything they might themselves have done? Um - no thanks.

You've steered us into a serious mess - so please at least be serious yourselves.

In looking these up I came across the latest MC minutes.

Did I read it right? The BMC losing circa 120 members a month?!  At a time when Rock climbing is going through a huge boom.

Sorry, but this may be the last chance to keep this thing alive, but we need to reach for the defibrillator right now.

Another oddity of last night's meeting is that, several times, it was mentioned that a significant part of the plan to restore the reserves and to regain financial stability is to increase membership. However, likewise, it was mentioned that membership had been more-or-less static (at about 80,000) for many years.

So the aspiration seems largely fantasy to me. At the very least, no believable strategy for increasing membership has been outlined.

Or have I missed something important?

Does anyone know what the "RYA model" is for GB Climbing? The RYA have a similar set up to the GBClimbing/BMC with British Sailing/RYA but apart from that and racing dinghy's on a local reservoir in my youth, I am none the wiser.

Particularly as, and I realise I’ve said this here repeatedly, the BMC have done nothing to try and recruit members from the huge number of people starting out in the sport from indoor climbing.

There’s the will and desire, sure, but absolutely no tangible action. 

Please, for the love of god, can those people who are in post at the BMC who are no doubt reading this, can you wake up, swallow your pride and do what’s best for the organisation rather than what’s best for your pride?

I struggle to see any direct benefit where joining the BMC would meet a specific need for somebody indoor climbing only ( unless competing).There has to be something to make you cough up the fee...can you come up with something that ticks that box.....

There is no point in wasting time doing that stuff if there is no actual market.

I think one of the panel said that they had failed last year to implement plans to increase membership but that they believed it possible (which it surely is) and would be getting on with it.

I will say from my experience in RYA youth squads I do not think they were a great model to copy. They really drove towards a small group becoming olympic hopefuls and alienated sailing quite significantly for the rest. Weighing 13 year olds and the such was all part of it!

I agree with you 100% there is no hook to draw these people in to the org.  

So those responsible for this kind of thing can shrug their shoulders, and give it up as a bad job, or actually come up with some strategies and benefits that would improve their offering to them.

So far, it seems they’ve decided on the former of these strategies as I’ve seen precisely nothing on the latter.

”Better to light a candle than curse the darkness” 

I don't take a huge amount of confidence from this although it's a lot better than the £800k rumour.  But it's not that big a number for an organisation that spends ~£5m per year.  We also don't know much about the annual cash flows (perhaps we should ask to see it?).  Clubs pay their subs in the first quarter so ~25,000 club members at the adult rate of £23.90 is about £600,000 of cash arriving in Q1.  Grant income also works on an April to March year so maybe quite a lot of grant cash arrives in Q2?  I do take some comfort from the auditors having signed off on going concern.

As far as I'm aware there is a fair bit of effort going into coming up with a strategy and offering to engage with indoor climbers and entice them into membership. Hopefully it will be rolled out soon (and will be successful!) 

I have had an email from the CEO asking me for what technical committee provides in terms of value to members and what it can contribute to the membership offer (this was addressed to all specialist committee chairs) so it looks like action is being taken to put together an improved offering to membership with the involvement of volunteers (something I am more than happy to contribute to once I get home).

Am I right in thinking that indoor bouldering is the largest climbing participation sector? I think I might have seen tha in a previous thread.

It’s worth a shot but wouldn’t hold your breath as apart from those competing in comps the BMC can offer very little to indoor only climbers on an individual basis except liability insurance (which most wouldn’t envision they need or value) and the discount at Cotswold. An indoor only offering was being worked on when I was there and got stuck in the weeds. If there is a cut price way to get membership it has to be suitably differentiated offering from the normal individual membership otherwise it would be inequitable. 

I’d be shocked if it isn’t, by quite a large margin.

Great news. Fingers crossed this achieves results.

Nothing that I have witnessed has been done to attract 'indoor climbers'. Hopefully there will be a strategy in the very near future. GBC are frequently at indoor walls (Training session, junior comps, para-climbing etc). It would be easy for them to take along a display extolling the virtues of the company that they work for, and to promote it. Not just the climbing aspect, but hill walking, conservation, etc. Indoor climbers quite often do convert to outdoor climbers, but many of them do not know the BMC exists or what it does for the outdoors. This has been my concern for some time, and I have brought it to the notice of the BMC, but nothing has been done.

We can only hope for the future!

I really struggle to see what the BMC can offer. If you cannot come up with a benefit really easily and quickly then it’s wasting time in my view. Coming up with an intangible benefit like a Cotswold discount etc is just not strong enough. 
 

Far better to focus on what you can do easily and do it really well .

Ok, here’s some suggestions off the top of may head.

Visible BMC volunteer(s) at every wall at least one night a week - branded t-shirt, just make it a relaxed hang out with a rep of the bmc doing a bit of belaying, climbing, hanging out telling people what the bmc is all about. Cost would be small.

Expand discount (many shops other than Cotswold offer discount) see if some walls will offer a reduced entry fee (some already do). 10% off a couple of pairs of shoes a year and a quid or two off entry and membership will pay for itself.

Engage into a partnership with walls to see if they can run BMC members nights only, perhaps including attendance from BMC amabasaadors. Could just be extended opening hours. BMC lock-in if you like…

More signage, posters, branding and visibility at walls. Most have none whatsoever.

Events held at walls that are open to BMC members only, or at with a large discount.

Socials.

Film screenings.

etc etc.

Theres some ideas off the top of my head. They’re probably all s**t, but I’ve spent literally 2 minutes on this and have no expirience. Surely the BMC can come up with better suggestions?

A modest annual fee for indoor only climbers. Drop your mate, you've got unlimited liability insurance. Sounds like a no brainer. 

Indoor only climber BMC benefits:

Personal liability insurance.

A specific indoor only BMC newsletter.

News about local and national indoor comps for potential participants.

News and of videos about high level comps.  

Training videos.

BMC discounts.

An indoor climbers' forum, member's only.

UKC style gear competitions.

Videos of inspirational outdoor bouldering to encourage expansion of activity.

Discounts for indoor coaching.

£15 or £10 for under sixteens.

Some good ideas there: 

Designated members at walls - Some local clubs do this already but the members supporting don't necessarily have a great deal of knowledge about the BMC. If people are willing to do this they can probably get enough information to signpost people to the right person, or the relevant bit of the BMC website for their interests onto 2 sides of A4 to make it easier for members to do it. This could reinforce recruitment efforts to the club due to additional benefits. 

I think some discount providers retracted their discounts when the Cotswold agreement was reached (I don't personally use Cotswold as their branches are often less accessible than other shops and I find their website unusable).

Some walls do have this, but only when they are privately booked by BMC clubs. A big improvement would be to leverage MSO to support a registration which works for lots of different walls with one place to update your data when it changes.

The branding and visibility ties in with an idea pitched at tech committee to build on the idea of the belay simulators with links to information about equipment and content about skills, doing this would take a lot of work but would contribute to an improvement in safety of inexperienced climbers.

Anyway, back to work on the request from Paul.

I actually think his obvious talents are wasted on such triviality as sorting out the BMC as the UN should be using his services to negotiate peace deals in Ukraine and Isreal/Palestine.
 

With the possible exception of hillwalking / rambling, it is by far the largest climbing participation sector. I'd be quite surprised if it didn't exceed the total of all other participation sectors other than hillwalking.

Those are a list of features . Coming up with the benefits and why you should buy is a lot harder.  

Always remember  price matching is common in retail so discount schemes for products are more difficult.  You can after all buy stuff from a wide range of sources. Which is why travel insurance with BMC works well.

Its not easy to do to have in place affinity schemes which are successful.

Are there not in reality plenty of retail distributors selling climbing gear ranging from Cotswold to online shops to specialist shops. You would really need to nail every one to gain a good level of income.

And you do not have the membership numbers ( say in comparison with Scouts) to consider low hit rates.

it’s a difficult one and not easy. 

Not quite sure what you are saying here? 

There are various liability things with this which make it likely difficult, but yes, if we could roll that up along with the single registration idea supported by MSO that would be ideal, if it kept a record of visits to walls that would also be of use for people doing things like DofE to help with demonstrating regularity of participation in their physical recreation option (a very minor benefit).

I put together a list of ideas last night and have asked the committee to add their own views.

That’s the crux of the problem, because I can’t see BMC membership being a compelling offer to the majority of climbers who mostly exclusively climb indoors. 

What’s being suggested in other posts is basically making membership a £47.20 retail discount card, which could work. It would help if the discounts were with outfits like Bananafingers or Outside. I usually give away/sell Cotswold gift cards. A market researcher would probably give chapter and verse on this without too deep a dive, but my guess is the increase in membership would be marginal.

The indoor walls seem to be increasingly offering opportunities to transition to outdoor climbing, courses could offer discounted BMC membership. My 12 month wall membership is £620 for climbing and bouldering across 3 centres. A £23.90 BMC club membership bundled in with membership would only be 4% extra, and would probably draw in some more numbers. Some kind of collaboration here with the walls might work well. Again market analysis will save speculation, time and effort. Importantly, it needs a robust business case from BMC made to the walls.

Not a bad list but would require investment. The way I approach things (as when employed there) was to identify and focus on opportunities that are a close fit which yield max revenue for minimal cost and disruption. 

Has anyone got some defensible numbers about how many new (indoor bouldering only) people we can reasonably target? My own back-of-fag-packet numbers (e.g., 100 walls, 50 boulderers per day coming once per week, 10% take up of BMC offer) just doesn't come to more that a couple of thousand potential new members. Any better numbers?

Lapsed memberships? Those are the low hanging fruit, surely? I have been a member on and off for years. Never paid annually by direct debit. I have never been chased when my membership has expired.

Of the database of everyone who has been a member in the past 10 years (for example) what percentage are currently members?

This is what they should go after before trying to convince indoor climbers to join. IMO.

What’s MSO? Getting climbing wall companies who are often in direct competition in cities to sign up to this would seem a bit of a hurdle? e.g. if I’m visiting a city that has a Depot and an Awesome Wall, I’ll go to the Depot as I’m already registered with them. 
 

I think the scratching around for ideas shows that The BMC really doesn’t have anything to offer to casual wall users, if they did those potential benefits would have become clear over the last decade of climbing wall expansion. It’s not like people who go to gyms are members of British Association of Gyms or whatever. 
 

Not sure how long you could keep lapsed member data under GDPR? Should probably be deleted pretty quick.

Go outdoors membership card costs what a few quid in comparison and far larger  market.Just does not really tick the right boxes.

Been involved in the past with a similar style schemes targeting gym clubs( far more of them than climbing walls). It was a right waste of time.

I am very as you will say sceptical as a result.

They are very hard to set up these type of affinity schemes. The profitable ones are because there is strong /exclusive and obvious affinity in the first place.

What works for the BMC is the existing  travel insurance scheme..for obvious affinity reasons.Maximising the potential from that is the best revenue earner. Keeping that on track is  critical and " profitable".

I agree lapsed memberships are a good low hanging fruit to go after but.....

I disagree with this. I don't think the BMC should be "trying to convince indoor climbers to join" but I do think they should have an offer to indoor climbers that makes them want to join.

Why? Well, a large part of the climbing community are now indoor climbers and I am signed up to the "one big tent" philosophy of being a climber. But, more importantly imho, the path to outdoor climbing is now mainly from being an indoor climber first. The old ways via a known mentor or a club are dying, and if we are to ensure that the outdoor climbers of the future are the custodians of the our crags and ethics, we need to engage with them early. The BMC has a vital role to play in this.

Membership Services Online, it's where the BMC holds members' data which they can update. If the BMC could set up a one time registration process supported by ABC walls could do away with fuss around data handling and reduce workload a little bit for staff at front desks, it already handles data so the expense of doing this for the BMC would be relatively small while offering a cost saving to individual walls and making it more convenient for indoor only climbers along with those of us who bail to a wall when it unexpectedly pisses with rain when planning outdoor climbing.

But yes, people who only climb indoors can get most of the beneficial stuff by virtue of the BMC doing stuff for outdoor climbers (my list of stuff tech committee does which benefits only members compared against what benefits the wider climbing community was imbalanced in favour of the community side of things). I have no idea how that could be redressed and bluntly I don't believe it would be the right thing to do to limit safety improvements to only those who are paid up members.

Yep that’s one.

Other lowish hanging fruit include conversion to a charity which would enable gift aid reclaim on membership fees which would be £massive as well as setting up a commercial subsidiary to enable better VAT reclaim with an estimated saving of £50k.

So, growth is a mantra for the majority of companies and I’ve worked with some companies where this mantra has become counter productive and eaten away at the focus on delivering their core activities well. If a company’s margins and business model are appropriate, it’s possible to operate a robust, tidy business without stellar growth. A lot of energy and good will gets lost in chasing marginal gains in customer or membership base, often losing sight of core responsibility. I don’t know where the original projections for membership growth came from, let alone became accepted wisdom, but a a more considered approach to available growth won’t, in the case of BMC, be the end of the world. There was obvious scope for rationalising expenditure and activities in the published accounts to make the BMC secure and stable. There are obvious paths to take before panicking over membership numbers. I think it’ll work out ok.

Great points. Focussing on chasing areas of growth also erodes the loyalty of the core membership as it feels less and less like the organisation speaks for them. 

I completely agree. But, at the AGM, it was stated several times by the people in charge that increasing membership was a key goal in order to regain financial stability.

As you have written, I think that's a completely misguided aspiration - and probably a pie-in-the-sky one. Work with what you have; do a good job; and don't spaff money up the wall.

But we'll have to see, won't we?

You seem to be referencing the classic sales technique Feature, Advantage, Benefit?

I’m not selling anything, just suggesting ideas, so I’ll not bother listing them all out for you, but it’s pretty easy to do - A feature of BMC membership is that you’ll receive discounted prices, and advantage of this is that you’ll spend less, the benefit os that you’ll be able to spend more on other stuff etc. 

Price matching is irrelevant, the existing BMC discount is a percentage price whatever it is. It’s of no consequence if that retailer has reduced it in order to match a competitor.

I think engage them when they are ready and that’s at the point when they have gone outside.

Indoor only climbing has little to do with the BMC and a membership scheme is likely to be more compelling coming from the ABC (Association of British Climbing Walls) who could in theory offer wall discounts if they got their act together which would be an obvious and immediate benefit to indoor only climbers.

If the BMC had exhausted the opportunities with their core market of outdoor climbers and upland hillwalkers then maybe, but why chase a type of climber that isn’t going to have much obvious connection to the BMC when you could be pushing at an open door with those more aligned. When I was at Kendal converting people like that who ambled into the BMC stand was easy if you ask the right questions and explain the benefits. 

None of the things suggested here are mutually exclusive with keeping the BMC insurance scheme going. They can all just be part of the broad offering that membership brings. 

At one point, prior to the current Chair, some on the Board had highly ambitious growth plans. Equally, back then, some on the Board and a big majority on Council were opposed to that. However I think it's not unreasonable to expect growth to roughly track participation growth, whereas in reality we have been slowly falling behind until the pandemic and have taken a big hit since. The view I support is members should want to join and support our organisational ethos and good work. Currently many potential members just don't know enough about the BMC to want to join, especially adventurous hill walkers. 

The BMC is really a not for profit company with broadly charitable aims. We were advised that a charitable structure would be more expensive and more complex so the company structure was preferable but I have never seen any detail on that.

The main BMC 'offer' is supporting the good work it does and third party insurance for the activities.

I might support a subsidary company if the detail looked sensible (as long as it didn't unfairly disadvantage comps and their stakeholders) within a charity overall structure but that's a pretty theoretical position given the current unknowns and the fact we need to get the finances stable first (we simply can't afford expensive governance change right now).

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one!

The ABC is a trade body representing the climbing walls as businesses. The BMC is the national representative body for climbers. I know who I would want and trust to represent climbers interests.

Of course ensuring the BMC has maximized membership in what you call their "core market" is required, but not to the exclusion of exploring other avenues, especially when early engagement with climbers at the start of their journey will probably be more fruitful than trying to convince those who have got on fine for years without knowing about/being a member of the BMC, as well as allowing the BMC to help their transition from indoor to out and to instill in them the ethics, codes of conduct etc that will ensure we are all able to enjoy our crags for the years to come!

I don't disagree that chasing growth for growth's sake is a fools errand but I do worry that if participation rates are increasing, but membership is static, the BMC will be become less relevant over time and therefore maybe less influential in areas where its influence is needed, e.g. access. Maintaining membership as a proportion of participation seems a laudable aim?

Currently in charge. Syme is gone and Roger Murray goes in October or hopefully before. 

Staff cuts is the other option. You have to question whether even with recent unreplaced leavers whether 40.3 full time employees (figure quoted at AGM) is an appropriate number for an organisation like ours.

Chasing membership growth for its own sake is a way of avoiding hard decisions IMO.

At the AGM, I misheard that figure as '43.' But, either way, '40.3' or '43' FTE paid staff is an absolutely unbelievable figure for the BMC. What do all these people do?

I would be interested to see a graph that shows the number of BMC FTE staff per year over, say, the past ten years.

This would be great but when you think about it it's sadly a non-starter. Rockgympro could set this up in a heartbeat but they've chosen not to. If the BMC (or anyone else) implemented something you'd probably find it would force rgp's hand to do something similar themselves, which would immediately replace whatever the BMC did and make all the work for nothing.

Yeah. It should be an organisation that all outdoor recreational climbers in England and Wales feel compelled to join, but it isn't. That should be the starting point but this thread tells me it won't be.

are we talking about outdoor climbing participation or indoor? Obviously a massive increase in the latter, but not so sure about the former?

Lot's of interesting ideas about how to grow, or even just maintain the BMC membership.

I to would question any drive for growth as the solution to the financial problems,  we've tried that and it failed, therefore we have to cut the cloth accordingly.

Having said that I do think there is some milage in recruiting from indoor climbing walls, accepting that a lot of people are using indoor climbing walls as an alternative gym and have little interest in climbing outside, let alone going trad climbing, but there are a few.

My sixth peneth worth is for the BMC to encourage and support clubs to actively recruit new members at the climbing wall. This is something my local club is doing quite successful. This will get those people who do want to move on to outdoor climbing into the BMC fold via the club affiliation.

I was talking about outdoor, under the impression there were some stats to show an increase in outdoor participation (as we include hill walkers…..)

Agree with all of that Steve, especially the section on the BMC working with and supporting the clubs to recruit new members. I would hope Dom’s background with the Rucksack Club and time as Clubs rep at the BMC will really help with this.

Why not?

I don’t think the issue was that there was a drive for growth, it’s that the management decided that they were going grow the membership by x amount, set budgets as if this had been achieved, then took no action to actively try and grow the membership from the groups they said they would target.

It’s the execution that was the issue, not the idea.

Agree 100% they are invisible at pretty much every climbing wall I visit. A huge opportunity for recruitment entirely ignored.

There's detailed conversations going on about shop discounts ect to entice indoor only climbers. There seems to be this desperation from climbers themselves for the BMC to be more than it needs to be... which is an organisations for rock climbers in England and Wales! Indoor climbers aren't arsed, the vast majority of walkers aren't arsed, it isn't the custodian of major mountaineering areas.... get real climbing community about what is needed!

Yep.  A waste of time. 

We need to remember it’s not the BMC staff or leadership discussing these things, it’s the opinions of UKC users! Judge the BMC by what the new leadership does over that next 12/24 months, not by what is spouted here.

FYI, quite a lot of hill walkers are arsed and are members of the BMC!

Yes. Strip away the flannel … it’s what it  is about … let’s not complicate issues.  Doing that never works 

Ah yeah hill walkers, I think that bit should fall by the wayside too really, but that’s just IMO. 

More plainly including assumed membership growth in budgets (with some bad luck in doing that just before a cost of living crisis). The Board from early 2023 chose to reverse that decision and assume no membership growth in budgets.

Hill walkers to me include: lower grade scramblers; those with significant navigation skills in difficult mountain terrain and weather; and easier mountain winter walking. I see very common concerns with outdoor rock climbers and mountaineers in areas that are central to the BMC remit.

If indoor climbers do start going outdoors, getting the name of the BMC before them whilst they are indoors could be beneficial and is fairly cheap to do. I am getting inundated with football stuff and I have never expressed an interest in football, but if I did I would know where to go! Let's stop disagreeing about what will work, and try everything within the financial range to attract more members. If the BMC or it's departments are out and about, or indoors, they should have displays, banners, leaflets to give to unsuspecting participants. (I don't mean stick a leaflet under every car wiper blade in a car park, that is just a form of litter, but have info for anyone who looks as if they may be interested/suitably engaged!)

Agree 100% John!

Scratch that, I’ve just looked at your profile and you have Stoney Middleton as your favourite crag. Obviously you are a certified madman/glutton for punishment!

I totally agree that it’s a laudable aim, but it depends on the definition of ‘relevant’…

According to the Association of British Climbing Walls, around 1 million people take part in indoor rock climbing each year with around 100,000 people being regulars at the sport. >
 

I’m stuck at the moment squaring the circle of what the offer is to achieve even parity with rising participation rates. To (mis)quote from Pulp Fiction “that would have to be a charming ************ offer” 😂

It iwould bedestroying as an employee if you are doing stuff like this and you see no measurable result.just think of the AA or RAC person at a petrol station trying to sell you membership or the double glazing rep at your supermarket. They’re isbetter and more productive stuff to do for those BMC employees.

I'm judging them on what I've seen over the years.......culminating in the last few and this mess.

In future I will judge the new leadership on how they sort this mess..... but no I'm not hopeful as I don't get the impression many members see the problem for what it is.

eg Why chase hill walkers when there's a perfectly good national organisation for them already?

Exactly. And watching the debate on here on how to attract indoor climbers is embarrassing. You just fundamentally don't understand indoor climbing culture if you think any significant number of indoor GYM goers are going to join the British Mountaineering Council. 

This is the underlying problem.  Most of the people involved in the BMC seem to want to morph it into some other organisation rather than actually stick to what it was good at. 

I would have thought that a better target market would be the increasing (*) number of people taking up scrambling; the BMC might have more to offer those people.

(*) - I'm assuming it's increasing, haven't got any numbers but scrambling has become a separate activity with its own guidebooks etc.

Great comment.  

Naive question here but... aren't climbing walls festooned with BMC-produced signlets saying "Holds May Spin" and "Check Your Knot" plus the Participation Statement hung over the door ? 

My little Scout wall is... in the faint hope of giving people (typically more the 16+ group) a clue of something to move on to, and giving me something to point at when I give the "you might die, pay attention" speech that the risk assessment stipulates. 

Where I climb Mondays does't, I guess, but that's bouldering. I just haven't looked or thought about it for years. 

Anyway not the point. Profit is sanity, revenue is vanity. BMC is clearly in desperate need of the former, not pinning hopes on some late-capitalist growth-based model. What are we trying to do, sell the freaking thing to Private Equity ? Or erode the NICAS industry (they got there first...) ?

Y

I’m sorry but I just don’t understand your reasoning.

There’s been a whole slew of suggestions here some good, some not so good (I’m talking about mine here!). As far as I’m aware not a single one of them would prevent the BMC from continuing to do what it does well.

Let me use an analogy - a few years back McDonalds added salads to their menu. Did that stop them knocking out Big Macs, doing what they do well?  No of course not.

So why do it? Well because if even just 1% of the people who fancy a salad for lunch walk into McDonald they are all people who wouldn’t have walked in otherwise.  And there’s a LOT of people who would never dream of eating a McDonalds (I don’t think I have in over 20 years) so 1% of a lot of people is a lot of revenue.

If 1% of the indoor climbers (which is what I am to the most extent, so I guess I fundamentally misunderstand myself?) joined the BMC, which ought not to be had to achieve, then taht would have a transformative effect on membership numbers.

Or the BMC can just keep doing what it’s doing and keep cutting its cloth to live within its ever decreasing means and doing less and less for its members, until it’s basically an anachronistic and archaic organisation.  

So what do you want the BMC to be, McDonalds or Wimpey?

for a cheeky post-climb no-nutrition snack, Greggs, Burger King and MacDonalds have secured mine and Mrs Paul in Cumbria’s custom by putting on vegan alternatives, so a thumbs up for your good analogy, even the Peperono Pizza from the Pizza Hut down the road from Eden Rock.

Damn. Should have used Greggs Vegan sausages as the analogy. They’re bloody brilliant, and I’m from the North East FFS!

There is a small issue in that volunteers have a finite amount of time and I don't currently see more people volunteering to get involved so efficacy of activities in terms of attracting new members within the scope of where the person is involved should be a consideration for decisions on which ideas to implement.

Franco is just talking about the current majority of individual indoor only climbers. Those who go outdoors as well share the standard good work benefits of BMC work outdoors.

Just off the top of my head, the BMC is involved with: proving a funding pipeline and being a governing body for UK elite comps; a funding pipeline for the ABC and NICAS participation Sport England grants; coordinating and volunteer running Youth Comps; advises on indoor safety, equipment safety and indoor injury prevention; advises on the transition to the outdoors; works with advice for training bodies and their qualification bodies; lobbies a government that might legislate stupidly (given it doesn't understand climbing risks).

For individual indoor climbers it includes excellent third party insurance (that might stop you losing your house if you do something stupid that leaves someone else badly hurt) and some personal accident cover insurance.

….and Greggs Vegan Steak Bake, the cornerstone of any nutritious meal 😍

The difficulty is that it will provide those services to the community and a person can benefit from them regardless of whether or not they are a member themselves. It's great if they do join to support that stuff of course.

They are an outstanding triumph.

there’s a lot of useful conjecture here. Hiring a market analyst for a quick consult should reveal the BMC membership price elasticity of demand and project the sweet spot of increased income to be gained by increasing the membership fee. 
Increasing membership is not always the most effective method of maximising income and/or profit.

I’m not suggesting that should be done, but it does work in a lot of sectors.

Raising the cost of membership (above inflation) in a continuing cost of living crisis being faced by a membership organisation is hardly going to garner mass support. Those who can afford to and want to help more can donate time as a volunteer or money to the BMC internal charities (Access and Conservation Trust; Land and Property Trust; Mountain Heritage Trust), which can supplement BMC project work that also meets the specific charitable aims.

agreed, but this is an open discussion about raising income. Just noting that there are some unpalatable options, which also work.

I am sure that Paul and the staff are considering the various options and will present them to the board and Members Council once they have considered the pros and cons which will be supported by the work he asked specialist committee chairs to do last night. I will be passing my bit back to the office in a few days time once tech committee members have taken a look and added their views.

Yes, absolutely. And as I said way, way back (was it on this thread?) volunteers may be unpaid, but they aren’t free…

I just can't see it working... I think a full analysis linked to our ethos is more likely to say our price point is maybe even too high. The cost of living crisis has been the elephant in the room that has made BMC mismanagement impacts much more serious and the recovery from them more tricky. Just a few examples of impacts elsewhere:

https://www.inclusiveemployers.co.uk/blog/the-impact-of-the-cost-of-living-...

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-sell-five-adventure-centres-stay-fina...

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2023/jun/29/cost-of-living-crisis-prompt...

https://sported.org.uk/keep-the-doors-open-launch/

Which I agreed with, I just disagreed on your criticism of the particular task you'd objected to as it was targeted at people with much less experience than you.

From the BMC/GB climbing website. "If you’re a climbing competitor, BMC membership is required to compete in national competitions".

They did it for the money, which wasn't there. This was an attempt to corner the UK market in competition climbing and sponsorship. With little financial control.

That's not to say don't support it. Just be realistic that not everyone needs to or is interested in joinging and support the groups that are.

Yep, all good!

Who did what for the money?

The BMC have always been the NGB for as long as I can remember? I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

Indeed. Expecting most indoor climbers to join the BMC would be like me signing up to https://www.britishpowerlifting.org/ because I use the local council gym. The real issue should be recruiting the growing number of outdoor climbers and hill walkers who are not members of BMC affiliated clubs. 

Climbing has shifted from the bygone age of it being a penny pinching pastime when we drove round in ex post office vans and the like.

Some serious market research  would I suggest back up Paul in Cumbria’s view .

For what? Competition climbing?

Elsewhere on the web, I read that Mountain Training (http://www.mountain-training.org) is the National Governing Body (NGB) for hill walking, climbing and mountaineering. Is that true?

(Just to be clear: I have zero interest in 'NGB's - or indeed any other TLAs. I take Salathe's approach, namely: 'vy can't we chust climb?' However I am getting the impression that a lot of the BMC's current problems stem from chasing money, grants, and 'approved' governmental provider status.)

In what sense and with what consequences? I agree the organisation might be able increase income slightly, at the expense of reduced membership numbers (hardly by much income given other organisations seem to be suffering problems, and despite some being more able to afford spending on such investigations)). However, this will mean: abandoning less well off members; adding real pressure to the less wealthy clubs; diluting any impetus to improve inclusion and diversity; reduced ability to pursue Sport England Grants; and reduced lobbying power. I see little interest in staff and key volunteers in a more exclusive umbrella organisation, predominantly for old white men with good incomes that will have declining relevance for the much wider participant group.

No, it is not true. The BMC is the National Governing Body (NGB) for Competion Climbing. It is also the National Representative Body (NRB) for hill walking, climbing and mountaineering, i.e. it is who the government would listen too on those topics.

Mountain Training is neither of those things, it is a network of the national awarding associations, i.e. coaching, instructor and skills training. Not to be confused with the Association of Mountaineering instructions (AMI), the membership organisation for the instructors themselves.

That is a matter of opinion. They have been successful it getting the grants (and other organisations rely on the BMC to apply for the grants on their behalf, e.g. the AMI etc) but I would say the issues stem more from an inability to budget/manage the finances, be that correctly identifying the grant amounts (they are very complicated but still……), sticking within those grant budgets and an optimistic forecast of income (unrealistic membership growth etc).

The impression I got from the AGM is the attitude has changed re the finances and new CEO seemed very on top of his brief. Whether GB Climbing (the competition climbing sub group of the BMC) can stick within those budgets, and perform there duties (which also seems to have been an issue) is the next challenge and only time will tell.

Thanks.

'NRB' now? That is an additional element to what is (to me) a very confusing picture.

We have no idea whether or not that's true. But we'll see.

In any properly-run organization, that is an utterly trivial matter: the 'sub group' would be given a fixed budget, and authority to spend it. But they would not be capable of spending beyond that budget without appeals to higher authority.

I think being the National Representative Body for hill walking, climbing and mountaineering was the BMC’s original purpose when it was set up in 1944.

NGB for completion climbing came along much later.

The BMC has been the de facto NGB since the 90’s. It has never been a money spinner. Membership income from competitors is a drop in the ocean. Competition climbing might be many things but a market isn’t one of them.

My climbing generally leaves a lot to answer for…

GB

back to serious issues….stopped off at Lancaster Services last night on the way back from Preston wall……Vegan Steak Bakes have been discontinued as part of the rotation of vegan products…disaster!

and for context - fuel, wall entry for 2, snacks for dinner on the way home add up to more than the BMC annual membership fee which makes the membership incredibly good value 😂

Total disaster!  I may have to write a letter…

Yeah agreed membership is very reasonable.

I can only speak for myself, but if the BMC put the fee up say £20 per annum I wouldn’t blink. Wouldn’t even buy a round in my local.

Can imagine there will be uproar if that is mooted though.

One of the riskiest times for a business is when they try to grow. By definition you are taking a gamble in order to invest. Businesses have to do this because there is competition (like your Wimpey analogy)

The BMC has no competition. It effectively has a Monopoly. The main danger for the BMC is messing up its core work as a result of over stretching itself and going bust. 

Even if that wasn't the case, let's try and learn from the past. We tried growth. We tried spaffing all our cash on comps. It hasn't worked and the organisation is in a perilous position. We've gone from a strong position (both financially and culturally in climbing) to the exact opposite. All this has correlated with the strategic change in direction and I'd argue there is a causal relationship. 

There is more than enough money coming in to fund the core of BMC work and more, without growth. 

This is why I think it's a fundamental problem having anyone who isn't from a climbing or hill walking background making decisions at the BMC. I used to think the professionalism of external people was good thing, but now I think there will always be this disconnect between parachuted-in people and what the membership needs. It's just too easy to fixate on nonsense notions like growth if you're having to prove your own effectiveness against targets etc. And basically all that needed to happen 10 years ago was sod all. 

That is why you need to do the research and figure it out.Get the hard numbers. 

Great post 👏

That can only happen if experienced people continue to volunteer for governance roles or apply for jobs. However, I see such claimed positions as inaccurate, with BMC experience being largely irrelevant to what happened: nearly all the Board have been keen participants in BMC activities, knew the BMC well or were well enough trained, and I know they understood the different main membership factional views (there has never been a clear single membership position). The only person really 'parachuted' in and very much linked to the problems was the departmental head of GB Climbing and she was surrounded by people who knew the BMC and its membership very well.

None of the recent growth plans were any more than trying to keep up with our small fraction of the known participation growth and Board and  Council both held the line on a focus on promoting to those who share our ethos.

Well it depends what you include as BMC activities and whilst you will protest about the activities they are not all equal. I’d classified indoor only non-competitive climbing as an attempt at an opportunistic land grab. 

Mountaineering 100% clue is in the BMC name 

Outdoor Rock Climbing 100% including sport climbing and bouldering. All benefit hugely from access work and crag ownership. Reluctantly acknowledge that dry tooling is a fit too.

Hill walking. Totally yes to adventurous scrambling and winter hiking as mountaineering skills in operation. Less risky upland walking is a weaker link but benefits from access and conservation work. I voted in favour of doing more in this area mainly because we claimed to represent hill walkers even though we did little for them at the time do saw it as making good a broken promise

Competitive indoor climbing 🤔 It’s evolved a long way since Leeds and when Simon Nadin was champion in format and hold type and moves. Highly important to an elite minority and their parents and with potential to become a mainstream sport. The BMC has taken on a lot of risk here that could still bring it down. Time to let this fledgling sport loose to pursue its own aims as a partner organisation IMO.

Non-competitive indoor climbing. (Is there an acronym or nickname for these?) Are we really thinking that someone who does clip n’climb or people who do gym on a Tuesday then go to a bouldering wall on a Thursday with their mates and that’s as far as it goes are natural BMC members. I acknowledge that it is the normal starting point for outdoor climbers these days but until then it’s not a BMC activity.

Not yet, but things change when they become an olympic sport. In mountin biking there have been issues with NGBs deciding sponsorship for teams when at the olympics. Instead of the athelets getting to decide for themself.

My position on activities is not so far from yours except I recognise some involved on upland walking, comps and indoor climbing really do share our ethos in those areas. If those walkers and climbers care about the same things the BMC does and/or want the benefits they are welcome to join and support the organisation. My concern is more that the BMC good work and benefits become better marketed and better known. I've recruited quite a few adventurous hillwalkers who didn't know the BMC existed (let alone what it did) before they spoke to me on a BMC stand.

A more concerted drive for growth was proposed by a few in 2021 but they lost the internal argument.

I absolutely agree with much of what you’ve written here, but there are some issues to note.

Firslty, whilst not without risk, growth of a company is universally seen as a good thing. A listed company which is diversifying its product,  growing its customer base and increasing revenues and profits will see its share price rise.

Likewise a company shrinking, closing off divisions and decreasing its offering and activities is seen as a bad thing by investors. I suspect were the BMC to be a floated company it’s share price graph would look like a rather steep slab over the past few years!

I can name dozens of companies who went under as they failed to adapt and evolve to meet the needs of the ever changing market. I hope the BMC doesn’t become one of them, but that’s the path it is on now. The dwindling numbers a clear symptom. 

The BMC looking to grow membership isn’t the problem. The problem is that they spent as if they’d achieved those numbers, but made no tangible efforts to secure them.

I’ve nothing against people who aren’t climbers being involved with the BMC, I’ve worked with some of the largest sports federations and organisations in the world, you’d be surprised at how many people at senior levels in them don’t really care for the sport. That said, ideally they have both the business acumen and are a climber (may be a bit of a tall order!).

I don’t think Paul Davies not being a climber was the issue. It’s that he was bloody useles.

The fact that he was a sporting body careerist rather than a climber was an issue as his allegiance was to another world of grant funding cycles and good relationships with UKS/SE and those relationships will continue  to be a constant in their career whichever sporting body they go to next. The fact the Board left our collective wallet open in his office was a gift for him. That’s why we have to keep an extra level of scrutiny on those sort of people within the BMC from now on.

To an extent, yes, but like I said, I’ve known lots of people who have worked in similar roles who have done superbly so it’s not inherently a bad thing. 

One of the the most impressive business people I’ve ever worked with was someone who was commercial director at The FA. Didn’t matter that he was an Irishman who preferred Rugby, he was just bloody good at what he did.