Group: Members
Posts: 311
Joined: 20-June 02
Member No.: 887
You guys are still at it? Move on! I think you've rehashed every issue 3 and 4 times already. I read back through the last couple pages of posts and it's the same stuff from the beginning. You've circled the discussion.
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 4-October 06
From: Ottawa/Montreal/Gatineau, Quebec/Ontario
Member No.: 99,557
QUOTE(RBear78240 @ Nov 2 2006, 07:24 AM)
You guys are still at it? Move on! I think you've rehashed every issue 3 and 4 times already. I read back through the last couple pages of posts and it's the same stuff from the beginning. You've circled the discussion.
Yeah, we're still at it - and yes, it's been circle after circle... I don't enjoy writting it anymore than reading it - but I also have too much time on my hands at work sometimes
Then again... it is the point of the thread - but yeah, I'd like to move on to something else as well, Bear
What happened to those happy and optimistic personal experiences from people who were at both events? Those were rather inspiring and nice to read.
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 4-October 06
From: Ottawa/Montreal/Gatineau, Quebec/Ontario
Member No.: 99,557
Okay everyone - NOW we all have reason to bitch, complain and overall be ticked off. I don't have time to translate it all, but the jist of it is that the Outgames was approximately 5.7 million dollars into deficit, along with some serious losses for the provincial government.
I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt until there was actual evidence leaning one way or another. At least now we can be critical with evidence. Really sad really... I have no problem with a fledging organization running into stumbling blocks - but intentionaly lying? Unacceptable. If this was like a gaygames financial screw up then it would be alright, but since Outgames has serious competition with Gaygames, this is a death sentence for the Outgames for sure. I am not sure if the English media has picked up on it yet or not.
Les Outgames: un gouffre financier Jean-Maurice Duddin Le Journal de Montréal 13/11/2006 06h22 - Mise à jour 13/11/2006 07h33
C'est avec un déficit catastrophique de 5,3 millions, plutôt qu'un surplus de 200 000$, que les Outgames se concluent. Pis, le gouvernement du Québec y perd 1,4 million, somme qu'il avait discrètement investie pour sauver in extremis les jeux gais à une semaine de leur présentation.
Lire aussi
Vos taxes ont sauvé les jeux
Un déficit qui était prévisible
Les Outgames devaient pourtant être l'événement populaire le plus important de l'histoire de Montréal après les Olympiques de 1976.
En plus d'avoir connu un succès d'assistance mitigé à cause de la controverse qui a fait tenir l'Olympiade officielle à Chicago presque en même temps que les Outgames de Montréal, Le Journal de Montréal vient de découvrir le gouffre financier des jeux gais.
Les Outgames se concluent avec un trou de 5,3 millions sur un budget de 15 millions. Les deux gouvernements et la Ville de Montréal ont pourtant fourni 7,5 millions.
Le fiasco est d'autant plus étonnant que la directrice générale des Outgames, Louise Roy, soutenait toujours, à la clôture des jeux à la mi-août, que l'événement générerait les surplus promis de 200 000$.
Les journalistes avaient sur-le-champ douté de cet enthousiasme, compte tenu des faibles assistances observées dans les gradins aux divers événements.
Rescousse
Le Journal a aussi appris que le gouvernement du Québec a même dû venir à la rescousse in extremis des Outgames à une semaine de la cérémonie d'ouverture.
En catastrophe, le 19 juillet, les organisateurs ont réclamé d'urgence à Québec 1,4 million pour assurer la tenue de l'événement. Faute de ces importantes liquidités supplémentaires, les organisateurs ne pouvaient même plus assurer la tenue des jeux, à sept jours de la cérémonie d'ouverture, le 26 juillet.
Québec a donc endossé une marge de crédit de 1 150 000$ et signé des lettres de crédit de 320 000$ pour sauver l'événement.
Ce 1,4 million doublait presque le 1,5 million déjà versé par divers ministères du gouvernement du Québec. Selon les organisateurs, ce grave problème de liquidités devait être momentané, le temps que l'événement se déroule et que l'argent des guichets, des commandites et des autres sources de revenus emplissent les coffres des Outgames.
Sauf que le succès mitigé de l'événement - les gradins ne se sont pas remplis comme prévu - n'a pas permis de respecter les promesses de l'organisation.
Petits créanciers
Les fournisseurs des Outgames écopent, évidemment. Des 650 fournisseurs, 250 attendent toujours le règlement de leurs factures. La plupart n'ont obtenu que la moitié des sommes dues.
Group: Members
Posts: 832
Joined: 18-November 01
Member No.: 391
It makes half of the front page of today's Journal de Montréal: Outgames a financial fiasco Front page J de M
The article states the Outgames concluded with a 5.3 million deficit on a 15 million budget (numbers are in Canadian dollars). Surprising since Louise Roy claimed after the event they would get a 200,000 $ surplus as promised. Federal, provincial and municipal governments put in a total of 7.5 million dollars.
The Quebec government saved the event. On July 19 Outgames organizers called the government for emergency help of 1.4 million to hold the event. They needed this influx of cash to make sure the event would take place. So the provincial government garanteed 1.4 million in loans. Organizers said this liquidity problem was temporary, when the event starts they would money coming in from tickets sales, sponsors, other revenues. The original help from the Quebec governement was 1.5 million $ from various departments.
It explains it was to save the reputation of Montreal and save the outgames that the provincial doubled its financial help. A spokesman for the Municipal affairs minister is quoted as saying - In July the organizers told the financial problems were temporary. A problem of cash flow, nothing more. After the games the money will be there, even the 200,000$ surplus. -
Reality turned out to be something different. It took three weeks after the games for the Quebec provincial governement to impose a financial comptroller of the governement to look at the books and understand the catastrophe. Government decided to give the 1.4 million in loan garantees awarded 1 week before the event.
Spokesperson for mucipal affairs minister says they didn't find fraud. The problem was that the games didn't work. There were no people showing up. (I guess he means ticket sales was low) In giving up the repayment of the 1.4 million in loans garantee, the governement ask the Outgames to use the 800,000$ in receivables they are waiting after to pay 250 small creditors waiting to get paid.
If the Outgames organization has a 5.3 million deficit they only have itself to blame. Already in October 2003 the FGG was warning the Montreal organizing committee about its grandiose vision. Following problems in Sydney the FGG asked Montreal to scale down its projects. Sydney had attracted 13,000 participants but had a 1 million deficit.
The FGG asked Montreal to lower its budget to 16 million$ and the number of participants from 16,000 to 12,000. Montreal organizers turned down this request, in its bid Montreal organizers had a forecast of 20 million budget and promised 24,000 participants. At the time Louise Roy said they crunched numbers and the breakeven point was 16,000 participants. Below that number it is impossible to break even.
Following the refusal the FGG withdrew the Gay games from Montreal and gave them to Chicago. Not wanting to give up on two years of preparation, Montreal organizers started their parallel games.
In light of what we learn today, we see that the FGG, which wanted to control the finances of the event, were right to sound the alarm. Montreal 2006 will not be able to say nobody warned them.
Outgames Budget : 15 millions Promised Surplus : 200 000$ Final Result : 5.3 million deficit
Public money Contributions Gouvernement du Québec: 3,086,000$ Gouvernement du Canada: 2,005,000$ Ville de Montréal: 1,217, 500$ Tourisme Montréal: 1,004,000$ Total public contributions: 7,312,500$
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 4-October 06
From: Ottawa/Montreal/Gatineau, Quebec/Ontario
Member No.: 99,557
I am just more pissed about the blatent disception. I am not even sure if this will make news outside of Québec, meaning that anglophones and Americans may not even get that much of what happened. If it just remains in French Canada, I will be even more pissed.
This also explains why the outgames website is now down?
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 4-October 06
From: Ottawa/Montreal/Gatineau, Quebec/Ontario
Member No.: 99,557
If you recall complex, my issue wasn't with criticism - it was with the tone. 'Your big selfish way...' or something like that.
I have no problems with criticisms, and right now - I am FULL of them.
Here is the only English article I've found thus far. Knowing the English media, I doubt it will trickle out much into English Canada - except in the gay sports world.
Outgames lost more than $5 million: Quebec Updated Mon. Nov. 13 2006 1:31 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
The Quebec government says last summer's Outgames, which featured thousands of gay athletes from around the world, ended up losing more than $5 million.
Muncipal Affairs Minister Nathalie Normandeau says she's disappointed with the outcome, especially as the province gave organizers more than $3 million.
Organizers initially announced a $200,000 surplus but an auditor hired by the Quebec government found the Games were actually in the red.
Many of the cultural and sporting events drew far fewer spectators than expected.
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 4-October 06
From: Ottawa/Montreal/Gatineau, Quebec/Ontario
Member No.: 99,557
This is an article that an old friend of mine referred me to. It is the position of the Provincial government on the financial situation.
The just of it is (even as the title says) that the government of québec has no regrets with funding the event, and that overall it was far more of a benefit to the city, and the province than a loss. It someone wants to provide a more detailed translation feel free - but I am being lazy on my holidy today
Regardless of even if it didn't cause a financial loss for the city or province, etc. it still bothers me that they hid the reality of the financial situation. Doesn't lead very well to credibility.
Outgames
Québec ne regrette rien
La ministre des Affaires municipales du Québec, Nathalie Normandeau, affirme que son gouvernement a eu raison d'investir dans les Outgames de l'été dernier, à Montréal, même si l'organisation présente un déficit de plus de 5 millions de dollars.
« C'est quand même un événement qui a contribué à faire rayonner la métropole un peu partout sur la planète. Il y a des centaines de journalistes, des centaines d'athlètes qui sont venus d'un peu partout dans le monde. Alors, c'est évident que ça a permis à Montréal d'avoir une autre vitrine », indique la ministre.
Nathalie Normandeau ne cache tout de même pas que les résultats financiers de l'organisation sont « très décevants ». Les Outgames enregistrent un déficit malgré le fait qu'ils ont bénéficié d'environ 7,3 millions de dollars en deniers publics, dont 3 millions de Québec, 2 millions d'Ottawa et 2,2 millions de la Ville de Montréal et de Tourisme Montréal.
Forts d'un budget de 15 millions de dollars, les organisateurs de l'événement sportif et culturel destiné à la communauté gaie avaient pourtant laissé miroiter un surplus de 200 000 $. Un contrôleur des finances mandaté par Québec a toutefois eu tôt fait de découvrir le pot aux roses.
Le gouvernement Charest, qui avait versé plus de 1,5 million pour permettre la tenue de l'événement, a perdu 1,45 million de plus, puisqu'il avait approuvé une marge de crédit et signé des lettres de crédit aux organisateurs à une semaine de la cérémonie d'ouverture.
Les jeux, qui ont attiré 12 000 athlètes de 111 pays, ont souffert d'un manque d'intérêt de la part du public. Dès le départ, les organisateurs ont dû se résoudre à donner des billets pour la cérémonie d'ouverture, et les compétitions se sont souvent déroulées devant des gradins vides.
La ministre Normandeau demande maintenant à la direction des Outgames de percevoir les 800 000 $ qui lui sont dûs afin qu'elle puisse rembourser les 250 fournisseurs ou petits créanciers qui ont des comptes en souffrance avec l'organisation.
La direction a soutenu dans le passé que la tenue de l'événement allait se traduire par des retombées de 100 à 120 millions de dollars pour Montréal, après avoir initialement avancé le chiffre de 170 millions.
Group: Members
Posts: 1,392
Joined: 15-November 03
From: Toronto
Member No.: 1,932
OK - red or white wine with my dinner of crow? I have to admit I feel a bit bamboozled and misled.
Truthfully though for the last couple of months I have been wondering what these numbers would end up looking like although I did not think they would be this bad. Once looking at the fact that their American numbers stalled at around 2,000, 4,000 - 6,000 short of where they wanted the numbers to be in the last couple of months of the registration period. That was a fairly significant loss of those potential registration revenues and huge loss due to lack of hotel room sales and hence much less money from the $10.00 per room per hotel to the Outgames program that fell well short of expectations.
Plus after being in Montreal for the Outgames - when you considered the much less than expected ticket sales at opening and closing ceremonies combined with the fact that everything was done in such an absolutely first class way, with apparently no corners cut as far as I could tell, I must admit I had this nagging suspicion in the back of my brain - wondering - who was paying for all of this?
However - in retrospect - had there been no split and no other event just two weeks earlier, Montreal almost certainly would have attracted the majority of the 12,000 participants who went to Chicago and gained the huge extra revenues from that. They also would not have had to spend nearly as much as they did on marketing and promotions - without a Chicago event to compete against. Who knows how much better this mess would have been financially.
So yes - the Montreal organizers apparently blew it finacially, but would we be having this discussion if Montreal and the FGG had reached a deal? Who knows.
And just as an FYI - so far this is the only place I have heard about this. Oh the famous two solitudes of Canada strikes again.
This post has been edited by Travelpat: Nov 13 2006, 08:20 PM
I do think it's rather tacky to shut down their website so abruptly. I mean, that only costs a few hundred a month, right? To be so unapologetic (see Star article) and then just disappear...
Can't they get more govt. bailouts to keep a website up?
I do think it's rather tacky to shut down their website so abruptly. I mean, that only costs a few hundred a month, right? To be so unapologetic (see Star article) and then just disappear...
Can't they get more govt. bailouts to keep a website up?
Excuse me while I chortle for a while. I gather I was wrong about criminal proceedngs, but that was more a hope than a prediction.
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 4-October 06
From: Ottawa/Montreal/Gatineau, Quebec/Ontario
Member No.: 99,557
It was such a great event - it really was. Just too bad that the same things that the GLISA committee faulted the FGG for, turned out to be some of the same things that GLISA did in the very end.
While it would be easy to say that the FGG has the very same horrific financial history (probably even worse since government is most likely the one that will obsorbe the loss), the problem is that GLISA was supposed to have a higher standard. Now that we have actual evidence, I say let the judgements commence. I am just very interested in seeing what else comes out over time. If they were hiding something that was this obvious (I mean come on - it was obvious the federal and provincial governments would conduct an audit), lord knows that will come to light that was less obvious...
Group: Members
Posts: 832
Joined: 18-November 01
Member No.: 391
Participants in the Outgames enjoyed their experience. They even got more than their money's worth for the price they paid since Montreal and Quebec will pick up an even greater portion of the tab! It would have been disastrous for people who registered if the event had been canceled.
I see on the web an article in the Montreal Gazette that starts like this but needs subscription so I don't know what it is about:
"And the losers are ... guess who "Montreal 2006 knows the first World Outgames need to be financially successful for there to be a second World Outgames.""
Are the losers the taxpayers or is it about Outgames? I don't know how much it impacts Outgames 2. They need to be more conservative in their projections. Maybe people will be more afraid to pay months in advance in case the event gets canceled.
There is an analysis to be done on what caused the deficit. One thing often mentioned is few people in the stands, tickets sold. I don't remember it to be a big part of revenues. (I think I posted some budget numbers published in the media, in this thread or another this summer) Or is less registrations than expected the big factor. Is it only a revenue problem or was there a problem also on the expense side. I hope future games organizers study past games and avois the same mistakes.
Maybe Montreal break a record in gay games deficit! The Olympic games debt from 1976 was finally paid off this year (was from the construction of venues -stadium over the years being a big one-). Last year Montreal absorbed the 4 million debt of the World Aquatic games so Outgames will join the list.
I don't know what to make of the co-president blaming the provincial government. And she claims the deficit is lower (she doesn't take into account paying back government loans). I'm wondering when and what Montreal and Quebec knew. I read in some place yesterday, appointing a financial controller is not common and the government did this three weeks after the end of the games.
And the agreement between Outgames and the government not to talk with the media - what was that??
Hopefully the organizers will explain what went wrong. Journalists are looking for Louise Roy. Did they lie to the public. They were asked when less hotel rooms than planned were booked if less people would come . They said people chose lower budget hotels, people will show up, not a problem. When reports of not many people in the stands and not many tickets sold to opening ceremonies, the answer was they they don't count on ticket sales to meet their budget goals. Everything was according to plans, all goals achieved, it was a success. I found that organizers spinned their numbers and hyped them but it seems they were not fully honest.
The government announced for future big events that get big subsidies, it will have more surveillance. It will get involved in the projected budgeting.
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 4-October 06
From: Ottawa/Montreal/Gatineau, Quebec/Ontario
Member No.: 99,557
It's enough to say that GLISA has a lot of explaining to do. Right now, it looks really bad. Even if they explain it well (I mean - it REALLY has to be someting good), their credibility looks very impaired. THen again, so did FGG and they lived on...
Group: Members
Posts: 832
Joined: 18-November 01
Member No.: 391
A little press review.
On Radio-Canada's website they had a title for the Outgames story, A deficit in the closet, which I found funny but it's no longer there.
On TQS tv, they tried to find Louise Roy, went to the offices at Olympic stadium. They called her more than a week ago and she haven't returned the call. Outgames apparently moved to a smaller office at the stadium since and the security guard says he haven't seen Outgames people for a week and a half. A lot of people came looking for them (suppliers, employees). In French - Où est Louise Roy? Where is Louise Roy?
Also on radio on Arcand 14 nov 2006, (in French) he interviews Line Beauchamp Quebec Culture and Communication minister. She says revenue projection was too optimistic, number of visitors was not what was expected. She puts the blame on organizers, they said publicly before the games were assured of the number of visitors and after the games claim there would be no deficit.
The host calls the organizers a bunch of liars. Roy badly managed. He says she changed her cell phone number. (He is the man who interviewed her after the games and asked how muc did it cost for police and things, was critical and she hang up on him.)
From the Journal de Montréal, city of Montréal also made a loan of 1 million. Montréal un million supplémentaire Before asking the government of Quebec in July and getting $1.4 million line of credit, Outgames got $1 million from Montreal in April. The reason given was the same, a temporary cash flow problem. That puts the contribution of the city to $3.5 million. (from The Gazette I gather $2 million was given in services, venues, employees, this $1 million loan given up is cash). In the executive committee decision, it is written: after an external evaluation of the organizing committee accounting, the city takes a calculated and low risk in awarding this loan.
Outgames co-president Marielle Dupéré claims the deficit is $1.4 million. The government doesn't see the numbers the same way as they do. She says they have $800-900 million in receivables and $2.2 in payables for a $1.4 million deficit. The government includes sudbsidies we got to inflate the deficit she says.
The spokeman for Municipal affairs minister is furious. For him the deficit is easy to calculate. Take the credit line given by Quebec ($1.5 million), the one of Tourisme Montréal ($500,000), the one of the city of Montreal ($1 million), and the Outgames deficit of $2.2 million you get $5.3 million. Organizers take for granted that public authorities give up the loans to limit the losses. He is not happy organizers are blaming the government for justification instead of being accountable.
Dupéré said federal, provincial and city governement pleged to give $2 million in subsidies many months before the games. Montreal and the federal governement respected their promise but Quebec didn't give the full amount. She says Quebec only gave $1.4 million to Outgames and she estimates Quebec still owe $1.1 million. If they don't small suppliers will not get money due to them. She hopes to sit down with Municipal affairs minister to convince her to give more money because if they are forced to declare bankruptcy it will be because the governement of Quebec didn't help.
Quebec says they gave more than $2 millions. It gave $1.5 millions at the beginning and $1.4 loan just before the games because of cash flow problem. Because of the deficit Quebec gave up on the loan repayment.
Montreal also decided to give up on their $1 million loan.
At the end of the day I would like to know the final total contributions by the governments. How much is it to total budget. The problem seems to be non-governmental revenues. They help enough.
Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 24-October 03
Member No.: 1,870
Well, now we have 2 different models that don't work that well. Major Government sponsorship doesn't seem to work very well and private/business sponsorship works better but still ends up losing money. Maybe we need to go to a true User pays system where the Athletes must commit enough money to ensure that their event does not lose. Tough to budget for and even tougher to convince people to expect to pay up to 50% more for the same level fo service.
I can only wonder now what this does to the viability of GLISA as an organisation. As I understood it, they were hoping for Montreal to basically fund them from the surplus. This also brings into doubt the viability of Copenhagen and potentialy the North American Outgames and Asia Pacific Outgames. It will be interesting to view their thoughts on the matter.
Also, I wonder if the Montreal 2006 organisers were running the company while it was technically insolvent. If this was the case, then I know in Australia, the directors would be on a very short path to gaol. Perhaps Outsports could publish their picture of the day of Mark Tewkesbury in his prison fatigues .
As they say, it was great while it lasted. One positive item to come from all of this is that the FGG has been forced to address the issues of change within itself. Only time will tell now if they wish to continue to listen to this message. Bring on Lyon 2006.
The trust that many people had is now totally eroded. And what makes it even worse is the arrogance of the organising committee now trying to play a "blame game" with the government. If they had any guts they would stand up and say - "Yes, we made a mistake, we cannot correct it, and we apologise to all those who were injured in this process". I just hope these people never have anything to do with gay and lesbian sporting politics ever again.
I also hope that the FGG embraces those organisations who wish to come back into the fold. Recriminations are fine if you are big enough to stand the loss of people, but the community is small and we cannot afford to have this loss.
Group: Members
Posts: 520
Joined: 21-April 05
Member No.: 3,228
QUOTE(jbal2009 @ Nov 15 2006, 06:28 AM)
Well, now we have 2 different models that don't work that well. Major Government sponsorship doesn't seem to work very well and private/business sponsorship works better but still ends up losing money. Maybe we need to go to a true User pays system where the Athletes must commit enough money to ensure that their event does not lose. Tough to budget for and even tougher to convince people to expect to pay up to 50% more for the same level fo service.
Yesterday's email to athletes and supporters by the Gay Games (their website is still operational) says that they only need to raise another $35K as part of the $200K they previously noted was needed. Clearly the Chicago model worked and this Gay Games will end up breaking even.
Group: Admin
Posts: 3,103
Joined: 20-September 01
Member No.: 8
QUOTE(softballstud @ Nov 15 2006, 11:07 AM)
Yesterday's email to athletes and supporters by the Gay Games (their website is still operational) says that they only need to raise another $35K as part of the $200K they previously noted was needed. Clearly the Chicago model worked and this Gay Games will end up breaking even.
can you forward me that e-mail so I can update my article? jim@outsports.com
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 4-October 06
From: Ottawa/Montreal/Gatineau, Quebec/Ontario
Member No.: 99,557
Seems that we have GLISA and the Province trying to put blame and not accepting it. The first problem with an organzation is when senior management doesn't accept fault. How can you fix what you refuse to admit is a problem?
I can see how working with government can be complicated at times - but I fail to see how GLISA can blame the province for the mismanagement of funds.
As for FGG and Chicago breaking even - I would have to say congrats. I would honestly say it was probably the result of having competition with Montreal. They had a reason to work hard and right this time.
Such a sad thing that GLISA didn't seem to see it in the same way. While the Chicago games seemed as though they for all intent and purposes sucked compared to Montreal, at least Chicago worked within its means and budget.
If you're gonna throw a party, make sure you can afford to pay for it.
The Gay Games was a great success in every way. But higher than expected costs because of weather and venue security left us needing to raise just a bit more money - less than 2% of the overall $10 million cash cost of the Gay Games. Through the generosity of donors who have competed in all but one Gay Games, all donations up to $100,000 will be matched dollar-for-dollar. We're close to reaching that total with just $35,000 left to raise. If you have already contributed, thank you VERY MUCH.
Our donors have agreed to extend the matching campaign through the end of November. On behalf of the thousands of volunteers and staff who worked so hard to make this event a success, we ask that you make a contribution to help us meet the matching donation, pay our remaining bills, and focus on the final wind-down of the 2006 Gay Games as we transition our hard work to Cologne 2010. Your donation will help us reach the break-even milestone and ensure the ongoing success of the entire Gay Games movement.
rastuurman- Your comments are VERY tacky. For someone who has had most of his previous comments on the quality of the people and information proven wrong to use this as an opportunity for ad hominem attacks on an organization, city and event about which he knows nothing!!
To say the Chicago Gay Games sucked (which is rich, since you weren't there) reeks of sour grapes. I'm sorry if the organization you blindly accepted and protected finally got caught in a disgrace of gigantic proportions. But don't go bashing an amazing, successful Gay Games, I was there and I can tell you they didn't 'suck'.
And the reason the Gay Games were successful is because of the work of the people in the FGG and Chicago. To attempt to attribute the success of the Gay Games to the existence of the OutGames as some back door way to gain back some respect for that now discredited business model is hilarious.
This post has been edited by softballstud: Nov 15 2006, 05:05 PM
Group: Members
Posts: 1,392
Joined: 15-November 03
From: Toronto
Member No.: 1,932
Nitpicking time here, but until we actually hear from GLISA I think it is important to note that it was Montreal 2006 organizers who blew their budget - to their shame. They are not GLISA. Yes they played a major role in bankrolling the start up of GLISA - but today the two are not one and the same. GLISA is now an organization of over 100 GLBT international sport organizations - only one of whom - the Montreal 2006 organizers - had full control over the budgeting for the Outgames. I don't think we can blame GLISA to a large degree unless it turns out that the executive of GLISA were aware of these financial problems all along and played along with the apparent cover-up of that information. If that did happen then I'll be the right there blasting them. So I think we wait until we hear who knew what and when before we can totally condemn GLISA - although I'll admit - this does not look good on them - at all. I think just like the FGG in 1998 and 2002, GLISA may have just learned a very valuable financial lesson - the hard way.
By that I mean this all has a sort of Deja Vous feeling for me from my time on the FGG board with Amsterdam 1998, when basically the exact same thing happened. A hush hush last minute bail out by the government to avoid a last minute cancellation of the entire event and then a shortfall that left many smaller local suppliers screwed. Because of the almost total control over the local organizers had over the event - and lack thereof for the FGG - blame fell on the organizers moreso than the FGG. When virtually the same thing happened in 2002 a bit more of the blame fell upon the FGG because of the obvious pattern that was developing. And ironically enough, the desire by the FGG to take more of that financial control to avoid a repeat for the 2006 games is exactly what resulted in the split with Montreal.
And to add further irony to this story it is undoubtedly exactly because of that split that Montreal ended up being a repeat of Amsterdam and Sydney. Chicago and the FGG were so successful at attracting almost all the Americans that Montreal were counting on for their event, that in the end the split was probably the biggest reason for the financial failure of Montreal. No split and there would have been thousands of more registrants in Montreal meaning millions more in registration fees. Much more US media exposure than what little was received (Chicago got it all), and because of that likely hundreds if not thousands of more Americans as spectators who would have bought many of the tickets that went unsold, filled many of the hotel rooms with $10.00 per room per night going to the Outgames, less marketing expenses - without having to compete with Chicago, perhaps more sponsorship money from some of the sponsors that Chicago landed instead for the Gay Games.
Oh the irony of it all.
Nonetheless - I'll reserve judgement on GLISA until i hear more, but join 100% in the criticism of the Montreal organizers. Sure they delivered a spectacular event, with first class facilites, great social atmosphere, wonderful ceremonies etc etc. just as they had promised all along. But knowing what we know now about the finances - it is clear that they should have made financial adjustments sooner and cut some of the non-essential expenses they could have cut along the way - to at least minimize the losses. When they saw that Opening and Closing Ceremony tickets were not selling when priced in the $125.00 range, they should have much sooner dropped those prices significantly. There were many other things they could have done too to alleviate the damage they did to some local suppliers financially. I feel particularly bad for some of those local suppliers who supported our community by supporting this event and now feel betrayed and screwed over. One story in the Gazette talked of the company that provided all the Dragon Boats for the Dragon Boat competition still having not received a penny of the $6000.00 owed them for the use of their boats. Stories like that make me mad and unfortunately do reflect badly not only on the Montreal organizers but GLBT sport in general, whether we like it or not. The headline on one editorial today 'Gay, Proud and ... Insolvent'.
GLISA - for your own good - we need to hear something from you on this - soon!
Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 24-October 03
Member No.: 1,870
I fully support Pat's comments on the need for GLISA to make some form of announcement. Needless to say there are a few PR types in GLISA currently ripping their hair out by the roots working out how to say it.
Pat makes an important point about the level knowledge that GLISA had about the finances. If they had no or limited knowledge then this is a fault in their processes which they will learn from and correct for Copenhagen. If they did have knowledge, then they must be held to account equally.
I do have one question for GLISA - did they get a licence fee paid by Montreal? I know in the past with the Gay Games, the FGG has subordinated its debt in favour of other organisations. I also know that the FGG is not happy about doing this as this represents funds for it to operate between Gay Games. If GLISA has collected its entire licence fee, then this also represents a serious issue on fairness
One suggestion I do have for GLISA is to remove their Press Release of August 10 off their website regarding Montreal 2006. I really don't think that the subject of the Press Release is appropriate right now - "Mission Accomplished". With a CAD5m debt, the mission is anything but accomplished. I will be very interested to see the financials for GLISA come their Financial year end.
Jim - it might be time to start a new topic - "Will the Gay and Lesbian sporting organisations (i.e. GLISA and FGG) join back together now?" Might make for some interesting debate
This post has been edited by jbal2009: Nov 15 2006, 09:42 PM
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 4-October 06
From: Ottawa/Montreal/Gatineau, Quebec/Ontario
Member No.: 99,557
Tacky? Sorry - but I said everyone should hold off on making statements until there was evidence. THEN feel free to criticize. Now that there's evidence, there is NO reason to state something to the oposite. Like I said, I don't criticize just to engage in idle gossip. Give some evidence rather than making unsubstantiated gossip. That's what most comments were. Now that we have something to go with - for gods sake, don' turn a blind eye.
As for the Gay games sucking - hey, let's face it - 17 million dollars in Montreal bought something really impressive - and please review other peoples comments on people who went to both. I am far from the only person who thinks that - and others made very informed evaluations on that as well.
Regarding blindly acepting and protecting - please review my previous posts and previous statement. I defended only in the sense that people were making baseless attacks. Again - now that there is evidence, go ahead - but don't make shit up and spread gossip. You may have thought that the gay games didn't suck - and I am sure they didn't, but I was using black and white language to illustrate a point.
And the reason the Gay Games were successful is because of the work of the people in the FGG and Chicago. To attempt to attribute the success of the Gay Games to the existence of the OutGames as some back door way to gain back some respect for that now discredited business model is hilarious. [/quote]
Let's face it - Gay Games had competition and got their act together. Why was Chicago different from the million other financially disasterous Gay Games? Let's face it - competition can do wonders - and good on the FGG for getting their act together.
Group: Members
Posts: 832
Joined: 18-November 01
Member No.: 391
Unfortunate situation for small businesses. Link to the story Travelpat was refering to.
Two guys "supplied the Outgames with six dragon boats, transported them to the Olympic Basin by a tow truck, and provided nine people to organize and run the races"
“Now, their office is shut down, their website doesn’t exist any more, and when we call them, all we get is an answering machine,” Smith said.
“We don’t really know who to go to from here. Do we have to go after Mark Tewksbury to get our money?” he asked, referring to the Outgames’ co-chairperson and high-profile spokesperson.
Smith said what angered him most was reading in newspapers how unapologetic Outgames organizers are about the deficit.
"It's all becoming so depressingly familiar. Montreal plays host to an international sporting event; the organizers make all sorts of cheerful predictions about how they'll be able to raise more than enough money from ticket sales and sponsorships to cover their expenses; and then boom, the final accounting comes in and the taxpayers are once again on the hook for millions."
"As recently as July 26 - the day the Games opened - CEO Louise Roy was insisting: "We have already achieved the point of profitability." How, then, did this happen?"
They attribute this to Roy but I think it is Dupéré who said that since I don't think Roy has re-emerge from wherever she is. "This week, Roy expressed some pique that Municipal Affairs Minister Nathalie Normandeau had had the temerity to talk to the media about the games' problems. So much for financial transparency."
"Her spin got more hilarious still when she blamed the Gay Games for cutting into the Outgames' revenue, even though the Montreal festival was founded over a petty squabble with the Gay Games sanctioning committee, and it was known all along that the two events would practically overlap. That committee withdrew its sanction from Montreal because it feared that the egregious scale of the planned festivities would guarantee enormous losses (imagine that); meanwhile, its own Games, which were nearly as well attended as the Outgames, ended up only US$200,000 from breaking even.
Maybe Montreal should ask those organizers for friendly advice the next time it decides to bid on a high-profile international sporting event."
Group: Members
Posts: 520
Joined: 21-April 05
Member No.: 3,228
QUOTE(rastuurman @ Nov 16 2006, 03:08 AM)
Like I said, I don't criticize just to engage in idle gossip.
Actually, you do. And it's this reason, among others, that Chicago organizers have decided to stay away from this thread and respond to people like you.
Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 4-October 06
From: Ottawa/Montreal/Gatineau, Quebec/Ontario
Member No.: 99,557
QUOTE(softballstud @ Nov 16 2006, 10:30 AM)
Actually, you do. And it's this reason, among others, that Chicago organizers have decided to stay away from this thread and respond to people like you.
Hm yeah... what does one say to that? Moving on... Away from personal insults and back to substance.
Does anyone have any speculation or ideas on how this may effect Outgames 2009? Since we have an option of which games to go to, I would suspect that this may have significant effects on registration for 2009/10?
Group: Members
Posts: 1,392
Joined: 15-November 03
From: Toronto
Member No.: 1,932
Hey Gene: I'll grant you - you've earned the right to say I told you so.
I remember one specific post that you made in one of these boards about a year before the events. If I recall correctly the gist of your post was that you weren't at all worried about Chicago's low registration numbers at the time - which I believe were around 3500 - because you firmly believed that the Americans would break in the end to Chicago in big numbers and that Montreal would have difficulty getting near their 16,000 goal because they would not get the American numbers needed to reach that figure. At the time Montreal was up around 8,000 registrants.
I really thought - wrongly as it turns out - that Americans would look at those numbers - 8000 for Montreal and 3500 for Chicago - and many would come to the conclusion Montreal was the place to go. Obviously I - and Montreal 2006 - were completely wrong and had completely underestimated the draw of the 'Gay Games' - or the incredible success of the Chicago/FGG team in drawing Americans to Chicago in the overwhelming numbers that ended up going there. And without all those big American $$$ Montreal's finances went down the tubes.
So - I'll admit - boy was I wrong. And you have every right to go ahead and say 'I told you so'.
Trying really to control my "I told you so" reaction.... But what do I know.... I am just a wrestling coach....
My new organization:... Team SchadenFreude 2010 ! (courtesy one of my wrestlers).
-Gino
Even though it's quite sad to read (as some of us had very high hopes for GLISA), that is defintely a better article, in my opinion, Jim. To me it looks like you reported the facts and criticized and quoted in a non-biased way. While we've defintely had words in the past Jim - I liked that article.
Sports: Gay Games vs. Outgames
Nov 2 2006, 07:24 AM
.
