UKC

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/restructure-statement-and-update

In reply to philipjardine:

It's taken nearly a week and they haven't even proof-read it! 

In reply to Wil Treasure:

certainly classic management speak

In reply to philipjardine:

'moving forward' ugh.

In reply to philipjardine:

"Due to covid", a true modern classic of an excuse!

In reply to philipjardine:

Interestingly chosen words that could mean a lot of things. Anyone know how the FTE in ACES has grown and over what timescales?

In reply to philipjardine:

Blimey. They’ve had a week to digest and respond to members’ concerns and they’ve put out something that weak. The lack of grip is shocking.

In reply to philipjardine:

I find it really interesting about the comment: "All departments will be affected, including ACES (Access, Conservation & Environmental Sustainability) as the team has grown faster than income can support"

I recently applied for the new access and conservation officer role. Got through to the interview phase but wasn't successful... and am now wondering if it's a lucky escape. Hoping it hasn't affected the successful applicant but it may be a case of last in, first out if it has 'grown faster than income can support'

In reply to philipjardine:

Could have been written by Tory HQ, it's all covid's fault don't blame us, nothing to do with zero managerial and financial competence. They should be embarrassed putting their names to that drivel, when clearly many members already know how bad things are and the real root causes. 

Restructuring: sacking competent workers to pay for the short comings of others. Pathetic isn't harsh enough. 

Edit, if comps don't split from the real BMC they won't see a penny off me again. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Similar to the political system in this country...No longer fit for purpose and overdue an Enema.

In reply to ExiledScot:

I'm thinking the same way.

In reply to Derry:

First in last out not an acceptable method; not that, from my experience as a union rep in a workplace that experienced a lot of redundancies, I ever came across a particularly fair method. This from Thompsons who work with many TUs.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-201-2625?contextData=(sc.Defau...

In reply to philipjardine:

Great spin. They make it sound like it is all the fault of the Access team. 

In reply to bpmclimb:

My priority is access.  I want to climb rock! They are here to represent climbers, the people who pay their salaries.  They lost the plot several years ago when they restructured (which was predicted and feared by many members ) I finally lost patience with them and I left the BMC a few weeks ago, after 40+ years

Their insurance is now too expensive. Their focus on competition climbing as forecasted, a few years ago, has caused a schism that has polarised membership. They continue play the usual PR Corporate games on conservation, environmental , sustainability and diversity. 

What a mess.

What a shame. It was once a great organisation that put climbers first.

Time for a another whisky.

“. All departments will be affected, including ACES (Access, Conservation & Environmental Sustainability) as the team has grown faster than income can support”

Is this even true. AFAIK no one in GB Climbing has been handed ‘at risk of redundancy notices’ and in terms of growth GB Climbing staff has grown from 1 to 9 in the last few years. 

In reply to UKB Shark:

I’m a staunch supporter of the BMC, primarily for the access work they do, but that statement makes things worse, not better. I’m left wondering who is at the helm, to sanction complacent nonsense like that?

In reply to philipjardine:

I have commented on the statement - not anonymously

Can someone (who knows) explain the £90k that went astray at Ratho?

In reply to philipjardine:

"we will make proportionate reductions where we can across all areas of the BMC"

That's the killer statement isn't it. The subtext is 'we can't cut any GB Climbing related budget because the sponsors would want their money back'.

So access work is being cut as a result. So much for sharing the pain across all areas.

In reply to gooberman-hill:

If the inpost CEO is staying, and assuming that a CEO is necessary, then should their salary be reduced as part of ensuring  that reductions affect all areas?

In reply to philipjardine:

Can we expect some journalism from the UKC team - maybe an article with some explanation and insight. This is clearly a very important story, that (by the reaction here) has got a lot of people upset. But we have no reporting of it - the BMC statement should at the very least be on the front page.

In reply to Michael Hood:

The former CEO and his deputy are still on the payroll, despite the addition of a new and enlarged senior management team a couple of years ago. I know that they are doing different jobs, but it seems an odd situation.

In reply to philipjardine:

It was annoying that the two original posts on here which attracted so much concerned comment were archived so soon. In fact only up a couple of days. This is one of the most serious issues that has arisen in recent years and involves all climbers. 

 At a time when our access is under even more threat, think Dartmoor, all the BMC focus and a lot of the funding is going into comps!

In reply to Stob Dearg:

Would you like to elaborate on this?

In reply to Sean Kelly:

One of them autoarchived.  Guess it was up to us to start a new one if there was anything further to add. 

I didn't think there was until we got the bmc statement 

In reply to Sean Kelly:

If I could elaborate I wouldn't be asking if someone could explain!

It's been mentioned hereabouts several times in relation to the current chaos but I've no idea what it is.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

There was a reference to this by John B on the previous thread:

"At the recent AGM the President confirmed that the £90k overspend at Ratho will result in a major sponsor."

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/trouble_at_the_bmc_again-7617...

The minutes for the 2023 AGM held on 17 Jun are not published on the website yet.

In reply to gooberman-hill:

Rob promised to get something prepared once they had more info earlier this week, I am not sure what the statement adds in terms of additional info beyond the fact that pretty much every volunteer is more annoyed than before?

In reply to philipjardine:

ACES team growing faster than resources could support. It's Almost as though the BMC had no control over recruitment of staff by the BMC... 

Perhaps they meant their financial forecasting was hopelessly inaccurate and couldn't generate the resources to support the people they had already recruited. But that sounds less... competent

Not a problem unique to the BMC. I've first hand experience of this happening in another NGO, but it was handled rather better

In reply to philipjardine:

Did anyone else receive the BMC email regarding a survey for access rights and opportunities? I got it yesterday!

Quite strange timing considering the very recent goings on. You'd think they'd have held off until these unanswered questions had been resolved. 

In reply to Derry:

I thought that as well.

Although it did seem more aimed at higher level potential lobbying to change the access laws rather than the day to day work the access teams do.

In reply to UKB Shark:

Apparently “The reason for this shortfall is that the budgets were set based on increasing income by increasing membership to over 100,000 for this year and increasing up to 200,000 in a few years time.” As if that was ever going to happen. This is beyond incompetence.

In reply to Steve Woollard:

General reply to archived thread really but may be of interest. I'm a 'traditional' BMC member but have a daughter who is very much comp climber and so have knowledge of that world. I don't know anything about the finances and don't know how much GB Climbing get from BMC as opposed to their UK Sport /Sport England grants (not sure which it is). 

What I do know is that parents of youth athletes and comp climbers generally are incredibly dissatisfied with GB Climbing so its not like this side is working well. All the finances, from whatever source, seem to get spent on staff costs. Athletes (apart possibly from those on an Olympic 'pathway' - which is 1 maybe 2?) get nothing. Athletes at all levels (senior and junior) are entirely self financing for competitions, training etc. My daughter goes to represent GB at an IFSC event (a huge honour) - we pay for everything. And because the transport, hotels, etc are organised by the BMC we have to pay twice as much as it would be if I organised it myself. Athletes go to selection events to qualify for GB squad - we pay. At a lower level children enter the BMC organised Youth Climbing Series - £30 per round with no option to enter one by one, if you want to do all four rounds its £120 in advance.

My point being that comp climbers are not being subsidised by BMC members (and all comp climbers have to be BMC members btw at any level). GB Climbing might well be subsidised out of our subscriptions but the money is certainly not going to the athletes unfortunately..

In reply to Steve Woollard:

It's great to have targets to aim for, but I'd put the membership aspirations aside. If the BMC support the climbing team, then in a formal minuted meeting it should be agreed they get X amount in total in financial year 21/22,  22/23,  23/24 and so on. Ideally a 3-5 year plan, not living month or year to year. What the money is spent on can and should also be stipulated. The funds are allotted and the climb GB get on with their thing. At no point in the meeting, informal tea bar chats, climbing wall banter etc should it be implied that the budget is open and flexible, it's not their money, they represent the members. 

I just fail to grasp why those involved don't think they should be heading for the door themselves, this statement they concocted just shows how deluded and detached from reality they are.

In reply to Pushing50:

I don't think anyone is against the indoor GB climbers or their families, they are pawns in this financial and managerial incompetence as much a member fees are arguably being mismanaged. This cluster can't be fun for those who wish to represent GB climbing either, it just creates uncertainty.

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Where is this statement from? It's news to me. For those unsure as to the size of the BMC Membership:

2020 - 77148

2021 - 78,673

2022 - 83013 (approx 25k via club affiliation)

In reply to Derry:

Yes.

Why? Do you think work stops because of UKC threads? The CROW act was a pretty major step forward for access to upland areas and the BMC was heavily involved in shaping that. Ensuring any changes made to the CROW act reflect the desires of the membership is a good thing and not something to be put on the back burner.

In reply to galpinos:

As far as I'm aware the stated target was for 100,000 members (in all categories) by the end of 2024.  

Historically - https://www.statista.com/statistics/614236/number-of-members-in-british-mou...

In reply to Andy Say:

That's correct Andy.

We've got an article coming out shortly which will clarify this, and a few other points, but the target was 91,000 for the end of 2023 and 100,000 for the end of 2024.

Sorry for the time it's taken to publish something on the subject, but as you can imagine - it's quite an involved one to write!!

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Where's that from?

In reply to toad:

This auto-archive thing gets my goat. By definition the most important and interesting threads will be the largest. 

In reply to Andy Say:

Cheers Andy, those seem more realistic than Steve's numbers, even though they would be referred to, in my workplace, as "stretch targets"......

Edit - your link gives different figures to the BMC Annual report for 2020?

During my time as a BMC Board member and Treasurer 2008 to 2013 when membership was growing at a modest rate we set budgets generally based on the current membership level as I was pretty convinced that at some point we would run out of potential members and the growth would at least slow or even disappear.  Unsurprisingly we produced a surplus every year without increasing subs while doing all the stuff the BMC should be doing.

Contrast with the current nonsense and you can understand why members get upset.

In reply to galpinos:

Work doesn't stop, but peoples opinions on the matter may be skewed by the undercurrent of uncertainty around the team. There may also be less response than expected due to this apparent state of limbo ...although in saying, that I filled out the form as I'm actively involved in access through my work, and rather passionate about the Dartmoor saga.

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

So if Andy's stats are correct, they assumed that membership wouldn't just rebound from pre-pandemic but would exceed the previous maximum. And that growth in 2023 would be almost double the growth in 2022 and higher than any other year on record in Andy's Statista link.

Using that as a target seems pretty ambitious, but maybe not completely unreasonable if there was some specific plan in place to massively boost recruitment. Budgeting in a way that gives you problems if such an aspirational target isn't met seems like lunacy. Small start-up companies might have to take calculated risks like that to grow rapidly. The BMC shouldn't.

In reply to Pushing50:

This seems deeply concerning. Do you feel like your daughter is getting any support from GB Climbing at all?

It seems to me like there is a lot of money getting pissed away by the BMC and they haven't a clue what they're doing.

In reply to galpinos:

I can't answer for the accuracy of those figures but it was quicker than trying to trawl back through BMC Annual Reports.

I DO recall that membership was in the 85,000 area about six years ago though.

In reply to Andrew Wells:

But not unusual in most sports, unless you are identified as an Olympic performer.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I've changed the way this works. I think eventually we'll move to paged threads so we don't need to impose a limit but I've quadrupled the existing limit so it should be good for now.

In reply to UKB Shark:

But isn't GB Climbing largely supported by specific funding? If I am correct then those posts will be protected.

It's reasonable to ask whether the funding for GBC which does come from BMC is proportionate to its value or interest to its members.  However at first glance it's looking like the BMC made plans based on over-optimistic assumptions about future income.  However although mistakes seem to have been made they probably can't be pinned on one person and probably couldn't justify sacking them.

The unfortunate reality is that when an organisation needs to find savings the easiest target is staff costs. Most other overheads don't have the flexibility needed to find significant savings.  You cannot easily reduce the costs of owning and running your office buildings, or phones and IT, and savings you can achieve are probably marginal.  Redundancies are easier to achieve, although there are additional costs to implement them and they may reduce the organisations effectiveness. Unfairly, these often fall on people who may be entirely blameless. 

In reply to neilh:

Even if you are identified as an Olympic performer if it happens to be in a sport which the funding body doesn't think team GB has realistic medal hopes the funding will be derisory.

The days of "it's the taking part that counts" are over as far as sport funding in the U.K. in concerned, it's all about medal chasing.  Hence why sports which basically nobody does (rowing, track cycling) but we do well at are very well funded, yet other much, much more heavily participated sports (basketball, for example) get very little as we aren't likely to make the podium.

A horrific state of affairs in my opinion. 

In reply to philipjardine:

The BMC have taken their insurance off the market as well.  Is this just coincidence?

In reply to Iamgregp:

Just for clarity, in England, sport funding can come from multiple pots but the big two are UK Sport and Sport England. UK sport is along the line of your post, it is performance and is linked to achievements in the Olympics/World Champs etc. 

Sport England is a different kettle of fish and part of that funding is very much based around participation (more Sport England funding went towards none GB Climbing BMC activities than was earmarked for GB Climbing).

In reply to Luke90:

In essence, this crisis is entirely the making of the BMC management.  The overspend at Ratho, or GBC funding are factors, but the root cause of this issue is that the management team figured that they could attract more new members than they actually did.

It's not an unreasonable prediction - as I said on the other thread, climbing is growing at a faster rate than ever before with more people taking it up all the time.  It's booming.  So it's totally reasonable to make an ambitious prediction like this.

So what's gone wrong?  Well, despite the boom the BMC haven't set themselves up to connect with the new people taking up climbing effectively enough.  Dated website, useless social media presence, no tie ins with popular "influencers" (ugh, hate saying that) in the scene, little representation or contact at events... I could go on but I've said it all before, look back at my old posts.

I live in London where there are loads of bouldering walls, they're all packed every night of the week.  The young people there are almost exclusively not BMC members.  Some have heard of it.  Few would have any idea of why on earth they would want to join it.  That's a failure of the BMC.

Instead the BMC has carried on as they always have, safe and snug in their Didsbury bubble with the same old (and gettting older) faces at meets discussing the same old cr@p that they have been for decades.

Climbers and climbing is changing, and the BMC isn't, and the cost of this is that now people who do important things at the BMC are losing their jobs.  And now it sounds as if they're going to lose members too.

I wasn't pleased at appointment of the current CEO (look back at the thread from when he was appointed, I said this at the time) and I'm sad to see my fears have been borne out.

Notice no words from the usual defender(s) on here still.  Read in to that what you will.

In reply to galpinos:

Yes fair point, but even Sport England has faced criticism for their funding of certain sports - I specifically mentioned basketball as although it's the second largest participation sport in England, it remains underfunded.

That said, Sport England is a fantastic organisation which has run some fantastic programmes such as This Girl Can, and has actually stepped in to rescue basketball on several occasions, but then it really should have to given the size and popularity of the sport!

In reply to Iamgregp:

Worth noting that these youngsters are the BMC volunteers of the future. Regardless of the current situation the BMC relies heavily on unpaid volunteers and failing to engage with the next generation is potentially going to lead to a shrunken volunteer base in the future.

As above it's not just the loss of paid staff, but also longer term the loss of volunteers as the current ones drop out due to age (or withdraw their support due to disengagement with the management).

In reply to Andrew Wells:

Depends what you mean by support. They get great support from the GB coaches at competitions and training camps etc.

But in the context of talking about finances and resources they get nothing. The only thing they 'get' from BMC/GB Climbing is that, as the recognised national federation only they can apply for an international athletes license and enter athletes for IFSC competitions. Because of this all athletes have to comply with whatever hoops GB Climbing puts in front of them. If it wasn't for this I would guess that all senior athletes and parents of youth athletes would much rather manage the whole thing themselves on a volunteer basis. So of the £400k/yr funding GB Climbing gets from UK sport as far as I can see nothing really gets to the athletes. We have to fund everything, other than the presence of the GB coaches at events which (for 'priority' events) is funded by GB. For non-priority events we have to fund 50% of coaches costs. And despite the fact that this is all self funded GB Climbing refuse to enter full youth teams for all IFSC events, despite huge protests from athletes and parents!

My understanding is that, in the past when comp climbing funding was entirely from BMC and was of level of eg £30k/yr all the staff were volunteers and all this money went to help support athletes.

In reply to Jenny C:

Yes very good point on both Jenny.

In reply to Howard J:

This is my understanding - i.e. most of the funding for GB Climbing is the UK Sport funding (£400k/yr)

In reply to Jenny C:

"Worth noting that these youngsters are the BMC volunteers of the future. Regardless of the current situation the BMC relies heavily on unpaid volunteers and failing to engage with the next generation is potentially going to lead to a shrunken volunteer base in the future."

I think that is a key point that is often missed. Without the volunteer 'workforce' the BMC would collapse. Area committees, Clubs Committee, Access and Conservation Trust, local access reps...: the BMC is, and has been, run through the goodwill and active support of a core of members who are willing to provide their expertise from a wide variety of backgrounds. The more you shift from being a representative body FOR the members to being a service provider that sells benefits TO members the bigger the risk that you erode that support.

In reply to Pushing50:

In that case I am curious as to where all this money is going, is it purely on staff costs? Transport for them etc

It seems like the comp stuff is largely funded by ring-fenced income though. I think the cuts in access seem to have come from good old fashion mistakes in financial forecasting in terms of member revenue 

In reply to Iamgregp:

It's no surprise to me that the BMC has been unable to recruit new members from the large numbers going to indoor climbing and bouldering centres Why would they join, most see it as an alternative gym and have little interest in the wider BMC remit.

What the BMC should be focusing on is outdoor climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers. The last SE survey estimated that nearly 300,000 people were climbing and nearly 4 million were hill walking but the BMC membership is stuck around 83,000.

In reply to Pushing50:

Yup, as near as makes no difference that's correct.

In reply to philipjardine:

Like most things BMC related it’s all smoke and mirrors. According to the latest Annual Report

Under expenditure -

£0.96M of GB Climbing Costs including expenditure related to the grant funding

Under income –

£0.780M to support the activities of GB Climbing including £0.421M funding from UK Sport and £0.166M funding from Sport England

So on the face of it BMC members have supported GB Climbing by £0.180M (£180,000) not an excessive amount.

But in addition Sport England Grant Income to support the development of BMC’s activities was £0.198M so BMC members have come out on top and on this basis it is probably better that the BMC remains the NGB.

The Annual Report tells us that there are 83,000 members. Also nearly 1000 competed in the Youth Climbing Series and 24 in the Senior Squad. Is this the total being supported by the £0.96M of GB Climbing costs because it seems very low, 1.23% of the total membership, and not a very good return for nearly one million pounds, given that the competitors have to pay their own expenses.

Therefore the real issue seems to be the competence of GB Climbing, which is an internal department of the BMC overseen by the Competition Climbing Performance Group (CCPG), which is a committee of the BMC Board of Directors.

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Absolutely agree with you on the first paragraph.

On the second paragraph I'm interested as to why you feel those are the groups that the BMC should be focussing on?  Do you fee they ought not to try to have any appeal to indoor climbers and boulderers and if so why?  Genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on this.

In reply to Steve Woollard:

I wonder where a lot of those outdoor climbers started climbing? Indoors perhaps? How do you market the BMC to the 300,000 outdoor climbers? Via indoor climbing walls perhaps where you can have information points and posters on walls - you can hardly put a Noticeboard up at all the crags in the UK or bluetak posters to Great Slab at Froggatt.

The problem though is that the BMC gave up on indoor climbing around 2007 and effectively allowed the ABC to become the representative body for indoor climbing.

The BMC used to send out a quarterly mail shot to all walls with input from all areas of BMC work eg nesting restriction information, insurance brochures, Winter lecture posters,posters for BMC Comps, all sorts of stuff. They used to do safety posters and signage for walls eg Check Your Knot or Holds Can Spin. The BMC had relevance to walls back then. Now what do walls get? Zilch. My wall (the Climbing Works) doesn't even get a poster advertising the British Bouldering Championships which is held in Sheffield.

In reply to philipjardine:

I think there's now 5 threads (active or archived) bouncing around discussing this topic.  In amongst the noise and the difficulty in trying to work out the numbers, there seems to be one crux question: should the BMC stay as one entity or split?

My personal view is that a well managed organisation should be easily able to work to 2 or more differing aims for 2 or more different groups of people provided that a) the finances are well managed and b) both groups are represented in the senior management.

What is needed to call an EGM? 

In reply to Iamgregp: & Graeme Alderson

Based on my experience, and I’m a regular indoor climber, most of the indoor climbers I meet have no interest in climbing outside, or if they do they do it once or twice and probably never again, and therefore have no interest in paying to join the BMC which offers them nothing.

Accepted some do go on to climb outside regularly but they’re the exception. The problem for the BMC at this stage is that trying to latch onto those who may go on to climb outside is like finding a needle in the proverbial haystack. Granted they could do more like putting up posters, but honestly who reads posters.

Of those who want to try climbing outside they should be encouraged to join a local club and therefore become affiliated BMC members. But clubs are no longer fashionable and I meet lots of climbers and hill walkers who are not interested in joining a club let alone the BMC.

What does this mean for the BMC? Firstly don’t rely on growth, it’s a dying market. Secondly concentrate on core activities, the things most members want – access, insurance etc. Thirdly identify the unique selling points and promote these.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Graeme, are you sure there are 300k outdoor climbers? I’d be surprised if there were 50,000 people who climbed outdoors >10 times annually.

In reply to philipjardine:

Here's the thing. I'm an average punter. I've no interest in competition climbing and I don't work in outdoor recreation. I've done a number of foreign walking trips, but I've only climbed in Europe a couple of times.

I don't NEED to be a bmc member. I can insure trips easily and don't NEED any of the services the  BMC provide. 

So the BMC need to convince me to renew my joint membership.  They are competing with other organisations.  I NEED my NT membership and I need my British canoeing membership. They provide services I can't get elsewhere. 

What good reason is there to continue with the BMC? That money could go straight to Ramblers, or the open spaces society and be spent on the same things I care about without the distraction of medals

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Yeah I hear you, and you're absolutely right about all of this.

However I think it's just that our proposed solution to the issue comes at it from different angles.

I guess your view is that the BMC offers little appeal to indoor focussed climbers, so they should disregard them and focus on people who climb outdoors.  Concentrate on Hill Walkers, outdoor climbers, alpinists etc...

Mine is that the BMC needs to find a way to appeal to those indoor focussed climbers, particularly as it's a hugely growing market right now, and therefore benefit from swelling membership numbers.  It also makes sense as, as the overseers of our competition climbers, it would be odd for them to not consider indoor climbing as par of their remit.

The growth is there to be had (but not relied on, you're spot on there), but it's just growing at the greatest amongst a cohort the BMC hasn't tried to engage with for some time.

In reply to toad:

Spot on.  This is exactly what the BMC needs to ask itself.  And find what they can offer that would make you renew.

What that is I don't know.  But some people in Didsbury are are paid a nice living to solve these problems and they've not managed to do so.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Jon, I was just quoting the number from the gy that I replied to.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

And I was quoting figures in a BMC press release which on closer inspection the climbing figure does appear to be misleading, typical BMC

In reply to Steve Woollard:

You have hit the nail on the head and I suspect where the BMC have gone wrong is in thinking that people into climbing walls equals more people interested in competition climbing. That would explain why they might anticipate a surge in membership and why they might think supporting comps would be somehow serving these new members. I don't think this is true at all. One reason is as you highlight: most indoor climbers have little interest in climbing outdoors, it is a much more fun version of the gym or crossfit for many. Additionally, they are not interested in watching comps. They just want a fund way to keep fit and socialise. In my experience it is the obsessed who are into watching comps, and they are the ones climbing outside as well as inside. 

In reply to Iamgregp:

My thinking is that the BMC started as the representative body of outdoor climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers and these people are more than 90% of the membership. To move away from this position to indoor climbing and competitions would radically change the BMC so that it would no longer be recognisable as the BMC.

That's not to say that the BMC should not represent indoor climbing and competitions, but the balance should be representative of the members activities and interests

In reply to philipjardine:

It would be tricky to administer but you could make a case for two categories of membership, one for competitions and one for everything else. There is so little connection between the two.

People could decide to join either or both but funding for competitions and eligibility to enter competitions would come solely from those choosing to have that class of membership.

The benefits of belonging to an additional category could be promoted to the membership at renewal time

In reply to philipjardine:

@ Graeme and Steve

The only useful data I have are from Nov 2018-2019 (ie pre pandemic drop in participation) which was that annual participation indoors for climbers/boulderers aged 16+ was 340,500. For comparison, cricket was 314, 800. 

This was shared by ABC from the Active Lives survey which covers 170,000 people aged 16+ and then scales up for a population estimate. ‘Regular’ is defined as 2+ times in the 28 days preceding the survey.
 

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Well yes, given that it started in 1944, several decades before indoor rock climbing was even conceived it wasn’t really set up with that in mind

But look at all the developments that have happened in and around climbing that have happened since then, that the BMC now represents - bouldering (yes I know it existed in a very limited form back then) sport climbing, conservation and environmental concerns, sustainability, competition climbing diversity and inclusion etc… These now, quite rightly all in the wheelhouse of the BMC and it has evolved over time just as climbing has.

It’s just that under its current stewardship the BMC has dropped the ball a bit, and not kept pace with the growth in one of its areas of focus where it’s struggled to stay relevant amidst a boom.

You could argue that it ought not to be a concern of the BMC, but if that kind of attitude has pervaded in the past, it’s wouldn’t be concerned with any of the activities and issue I mentioned above. And then where would it be?

In reply to philipjardine:

After the MONC there was talk of trying to develop a different  category of membership for indoor climbers with a more relevant package of services. That doesn't seem  to have materialised.

In reply to philipjardine:

I see there's a London and SE Area BMC meeting by Zoom on 25 July. (London and SE seems to include E. Anglia). "Members’ Council and Organisational Updates" is on the agenda, as well as "Extending access rights in England". I've not attended before, but having read these threads I'm very minded to do so this time. Does anyone know if we can expect a BMC officer with authority to explain these matters, and justify BMC actions, to be present?

Martin

In reply to Iamgregp:

I'm not advocating against change, but evolution not revolution.

In reply to Stob Dearg:

The Ratho overspend was questioned at the recent AGM (those minutes really ought to be issued before the Area Meetings).

Yes Ratho was ticketed and yes the event sold out (oddly rather quickly). What may not have occurred was any attempt to match the cost of a ticket, hiring enough seating and the expense of running the event. (Opps)

Did the board and SLT decide (afterwards?) that competition climbing needed a big party funded out of reserves? 

The President stated that the success of Ratho would lead to a major sponsor. One concludes that any future sponsorship will not cover access and conservation. 

Anyhow as the statement makes clear, Covid is at fault, not the Board and not the SLT. 

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Was that not largely because their climbing wall officer at the time skived off to open a wall of his own Graeme?

In reply to IainWhitehouse:

What I remember of ABC meetings around that time was the poor climbing wall officer desperately trying to liaise with walls, whilst the BMCs official policy was fully that 'we don't promote climbing'.

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

Excellent!

In reply to philipjardine:

It seems that the BMC is no longer selling its normal insurance policies. Can we be sure that the the BMC is still providing third party liability insurance for members? If so is the insurance underwritten or in house?

In reply to kevin stephens:

I don't know the technicalities but I can't imagine that it's in house because you'd need several million basically tied up (and otherwise untouchable) in a way that guaranteed it was available for payouts.

In reply to kevin stephens:

It is not insured in house (nor would I expect it to be!). Based on their product information document, the actual insurer is a syndicate at Lloyds.

In reply to philipjardine:

given the overwhelming opinion from members that the key priorities for the BMC are access and insurance and maybe lobbying, I'm assuming that the 'members' champions' - the Chairmen of the BMC according to the 'responsibility matrix' (the last one I remember was Rab!) will have made a staunch case on record to focus on key priorities?

In reply to AJM:

They they have always just been agents selling BMC branded policies on behalf of a general insurance underwriter.

Obviously they had a lot of influence on designing the policies to be suitable for members needs, but they just took a sales commission. All liability and payouts will have been through the underwriters (I believe most recently Lloyds).

If they have problems with providing travel insurance I would assume (as happened many years ago with Foundry Travel Insurance) it will be a problem with the underwriters finding it's is not sufficiently profitable, rather than an issue within BMC. 

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

The situation now is that we have a Board Chair who oversees the work of the Board of Directors and the Senior Leadership Team and a separate President, who acts as ' Members' Champion' and sits on the Board as a Director. The old president re has-been effectively split as part of the changes to governance brought in 6 years ago.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

When Rab was President the role included being the Chair. The role was subsequently split. The President is now the ‘Member’s Champion’ rather than the Chair and is currently Andy Syme. I was very disappointed to see that he put his name to the BMC’s statement and messaged him to say so.

In reply to Jenny C: Yes I understand and agree with that. My question specifically concerned the third party liability insurance which always came included with BMC membership, and if the BMC  are still in a position to provide this as a result of changes in the underwriting market that you have summarised

In reply to kevin stephens:

No idea, but I'd assume this is independent from their travel insurance. British Canoe Union used to offer similar liability cover for their members and again it (alongside a British waterways licence) was one of the main draws of membership.

In reply to Andy Say:

got it, thanks Andy

In reply to Andy Say:

Can I just stress a typo crept in there. I would never suggest that any old Presidents were 'has-beens'.

I meant to say 'The old President role has been split....'!

In reply to Andy Say:

Better a 'has-been' than a 'never have'... 🙄