Regarding the front page story with the dispute between Montreal and FGG, here's a suggestion on how to reduce the number of "athletes": get rid of all the non-sports and cultural activities, ballroom dancing, bridge, (dare I say it, physique?), roller skating, aerobics, etc.

Those are not sports. Those are hobbies. Big difference.

[ March 07, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Jim at Outsports ]

I don't think that they necessarlly want to REDUCE the number of people showing up actually. That seems kind of dumb to me. I think the thing that is disputed is the fact that Montreal is overly optomistic about the number of people they expect. I don't think that anyone really want's to reduce the number of people that come to something like this.

Exactly. The last games had 11,000 participants. Montreal's organizers seem to magically think they can get 24,000--MORE THAN DOUBLE the Sydney games. It's way too optimistic.

Outsports is growing, but not THAT fast! wink

I understand why Montreal thinks they can get more participants, and I agree with them. The last two games have been in locations in which travel has been a big expense. Quite a bit has changed since 1994, the last games in North America. I think that they will be inundated with athletes for the games from the US and Canada. I have many friends that want to go this time that could not go to Sydney or Amsterdam due to distance and expense. Even Amsterdam got almost 14,000 people, my guess is that at least 20,000 participants will come this time. I just would hate that they set the numbers too low and then lots of people who wanted to come couldn't.

I really hope that Montreal and the FGG get together, I was up that city last weekend for a gay basketball tournament and it was wonderful, the people are so friendly, nice restaurants and clubs and bars abound, and those french accents are to die for. Not to mention the strip clubs with the cute boys that take it all off and more, so I hear... The city really reminded me of Amsterdam, its compactness, size and friendliness and acceptance of gays and lesbians. It is a foreign atmosphere close to home. It will be a great place for the games.

i think 20000 is a good estimate. my husband and i are planning on being there, that's for sure, and we've never played in any of the other games.

off topic, rob...how did the tournament go? it's frustrating that the gay basketball tournaments (unlike the tennis tournaments) are horrible about posting results, etc. after their events are over with. how'd y'all do?

well, I guess it's unclear, but i was definitely under the impression that the FGG wanted a reduction for manageability, not because Montreal overestimated.

Just like the Olympics, the FGG is constantly having to deal with the problem of adding sports. I do know that rugby has been trying to get added to the program, since there has been about 20 teams formed since the last gay games, but we have been told that no new sports were being added due to the overwhelming size of the event already.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that FGG thinks that 12,000 is a good figure to keep the event at. That's what the IOC has to do.

But you see, this is not the IOC, this is a get togeather that is aimed at Inclusiveness. They want anyone who has never had the opprotunity to participate in a sport, that now want's to, to have the opprotunity to participate. That's like the whole idea behind this dealybobber ain't it? he he he

This isn't about some great athletic tournament where the whole world is gripped to their tv's to watch the best in the world compete for superiority over the world. It's about a whole bunch of interested people getting the opprotunity to compete in their chosen sport in a great facility, and yes, when the finals roll around, then it is time to see the best of the best do their stuff, and rock all our worlds by showing the world that us "gay guys and girls" can be dang good athletes.

This is just my take on the issue.

Ah, but there's the rub: Dupontred's initial post echoes my feelings, for the most part. Just like in the "real" Olympics, some of the events are not sports, they're activities. And rugby can't get it in because of a crowded calendar? The heck?

My impression is that a lot of people treat the Gay Games as a circuit party. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but it seems a bit contrary to the ideals of the thing.

I probably won't go anyways, because the 2006 World Cup is in Germany at roughly the same time and I'd rather follow the English team around and go to operas.

MSUBobcat is right, the real reason for the games is inclusiveness, at least that is what I have seen in team sports. Glad I am not on the FGG board, because chess and ballroom dancing would be out and rugby would be in. Sorry, I just feel that team sports should have precedence over individual "events" like aerobics. I have great respect for the guys that are in those events, I sure couldn't do one-handed pushups or waltz across the floor without stepping on my partner's feet, but to me it is a stretch to call them sports.

Anyway, I understand getting under budget, that is why I didn't complain about the Closing Ceremonies in Sydney, which basically was a non-event. Maybe if the Opening would not have been such a spectacle.... But to me and most of the guys that played basketball, the sport was why we were there, and we didn't even make the parties. I know they are the way to make money, but if you are going to tighten the belt do it on the events, not the sports themselves.

The Montreal bball tournament was well run, the enthusiasm was definitely there, but the main problem was participation. We only had 4 non-Montreal gay teams out of the 8 that played. I hope that the next tournament will have better participation. And as to people considering the gay games as a big circuit party, I am sure there are those who do, but in Montreal the real Black and Blue circuit party was going on the same weekend. I hear that it is one of the biggest circuit parties in North America. But I don't know any of the basketball players who went. I can't imagine staying up until 5 am after playing all weekend. That was the same in Sydney, none of my friends went to any of the big parties, instead frequenting the bars, having private get togethers, and enjoying the atmosphere of a new and beautiful city. That is what the gay games, and gay tournaments in general, are about.

I spoke to one of the voting delegates of FGG this weekend about the problems surrounding Montreal. It really comes down to two things. One is allowing FGG to steer the decision making process when it comes to how the games should be run. The other is to make sure that the games are not a financial liabililty to the host city as it has been in the past.

The FGG is supposed to get a specific licensing fee from the host city. Needless to say the fee receieved has been less than specified due to over budgeting by the host city. This impacts FGG's ability to do it's job every four years.

The FGG would like to limit athletics to about 12,000 as this seems to be the limit for maintaining fiscal responsibility. Much of the games budget comes from sponsorship, as entry fees from participants only cover a portion of the expenses. So unless the Games get alot of corporate money like the Olympics, they have to limit their exposure.

Here are my thoughts on the games as one who has been to them 4 times. First, I would say that any new team sports that have a "critical mass" in numbers should be allowed into the games. This is not to say we should remove any existing sports that still have solid participation.

To accomplish this, numbers of participants in each sport should be limited especially where venues dictate this. Swimming is notorious for exceeding the capacity of the pool for the week so firm limits are needed.

Sports where participation numbers don't need to be capped are those like Marathon and other road races. Venues like these have ho limits and the cost of the race does not go up appreciably.

I believe if participant limits for each sport are maintained then new sports can be added. The first come first serve form of registration will get those who seriously want to participate into the sport of their choice.

[ October 19, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: phillyrunner ]

As Avery Brundidge remarked after the tragedy in Munich, 1972, "The Games must go on". And so too will Gay Games VII in Montreal. It is reasonable to anticipate 16-18000 participants. Just do some math: 75 Global-Major-Metros x 250 team members = 18,750. And that should bring the money too. As for rugby, it was a success in Sydney. Bridge? Ballroom? Well even Sydney dropped Majong! But again, the foundation of this marvelous institution is buttressed in sports and inclusion. Let's do it again!

TRL; GGII, GGIII, GGIV, GGVI, heading to Montreal! :cool:

Im sure Im going to catch hell for this opinion but it needs to be put out there. Having had experience trying to garner interest in building a team in NC for baksetball for this past Gay Games (prior to moving) which had no interest whatsoever (in the biggest basketball state in the South), seeing the debacle of officials resigning over money issues, and now this upcoming Gay Games not even having a committee that can agree on anything, does it not make you wonder if gay people as a whole can not effectively come together on sports organization?

Yeah we have some major cities that have long running gay sports programs, etc and have had well run Gay Games. But what is built around those programs? Not a whole lot. Teams sports in other venues are nonexistant or have no interest from participants for more than the general idea, then their attention span goes elsewhere. Most large cities have some wrestling, softball of course, occasional basketball hockey and rugby now.

Texas has somehow been succesful in gathering 4 rugby teams (gee, a contact sport with lots of groping- go figure). Any basketball? No. Any football? No. Any baseball? No. When I lived in NC we had ZERO gay teams for anything. And I know Im gonna hear-- "well you go out and start one." I have. Didnt work.

I think Im done venting my frustrations now. But has anyone else had these problems in their respective towns/cities?

Sydney had 11000 people in Australia in the middle of November, and you think only 10000 will come to Montreal, less than a 6 hour drive from New York, Boston, Toronto, Ottawa? It's close to the most populated area of the United States! And the final number Montreal wants is 16000, not 24000. I think the FGG has radically underestimated the potential interest in a games in Montreal.

There are other issues here as well of course. I can understand the Federation not wanting to post yet another deficit, but neither does the organizing committee in Montreal. And I'm not sure if people understand that the committee already has millions in revenue from the Canadian, Quebec, and Montreal governments, and corporate sponsors. Iknow Americans may be hard pressed to believe that Canadian Federal money could go to a gay event, but it really is different here.

I've only been to one Games, in NYC in 1994. And you know what bugged me the most? Apart from the abysmal fields we softball players had to play on--uh, hi! broken glass in the outfield! how ya doin'?--was that at the closing ceremony, sports were barely mentioned. It was all crammed in to a 15-minute video montage, heavy on the "physique" competition; the rest of the time was an excuse for has-beens like Cindy Lauper to "entertain" and Armisted Maupin to make a pathetic politcal speech. My friends and I left long before the end. I heard Sydney was the same way.

[ October 20, 2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Jim, sorry your experience at GGIV was so abysmal. Of the 4 GGs I've been to, II, III, IV, & VI, each has been exceptional & special in its own way. Maybe my attitude had a lot to do with it. :cool:

Oh, no, don't misunderstand: I had an amazing time in NYC for GG. OK, except for fearing that I would get sliced in to ribbons if I dived for a ball in the outfield or the Rangers winning the Cup over my beloved Canucks the week before and having that rubbed in my face. I had a wonderful "vacation love affair" (hello, Dean Pedretti of Philly), some of the events were amazing (see: the flag-football final) and while I don't like NYC as a physical entity, I love it for its cultural bits and so I had a great time at MOCA etc.

But that closing ceremony? Awful! Though, to be fair, since I was an [snicker] athlete [/snicker], I got to enter via one of the bullpens at Yankee Stadium and walk on the warning track to my seat, something I'll never forget.

I couldn't go to Amsterdam or Sydney for purely monetary reasons. That's why I was looking forward to possibly going to Montreal, it wouldn't be such a strain to save for. This whole saga is kind of puzzling and it makes me wonder if the Montreal organizing committee are being completely forthcoming about their financial projections.

Have you considered that maybe it's the Federation that's not being forthcoming. Montreal has $5 million Cdn on hand 3 years before the games are scheduled to start. I know these people, and they are not interested in having a deficit any more than the Federation is. The Board of Directors is legally responsible for any deficit. There is unparallelled government support, and the National French network of the CBC is doing daily coverage. These people have done their homework, and the Federation is trying to shut them down. Why?

hey guys-
There will be a very detailed Federation Press Release issued shortly to clear this all up.
Be patient and be open minded.
We all want the same thing.

Jim, I didn't know you knew Dean Pedretti, If you played Water Polo in NYC 1994 then I may have seen you there. Dean was on my team.

I have been reading the posts here in respect of the unsigned contract between the FGG and the Montreal organising group for Gay Games 2006.

I was involved with the organization of the Sydney Olympics 2000 and participated in the 2002 Gay Games also in Sydney.
I am apalled that the contract between the FGG and Montreal still has not been signed with less than 36 months months before the actual event. This document should have been executed 12 months ago and if Montreal at that time were not prepared to do so, then the Games should have been offered to the city who polled second in the original voting.


I read that the one of the contentious issues is the ceiling levels on participant registrations and subsequent questionable revenue projections.
The four previous Gay Games, for various reasons,lost money causing embarassment and disquiet to the host cities. Montreal is boasting high levels of government and corporate sponsorships . Have copies of these contracts been filed with the FGG and should Montreal not succeed with hosting the Games, which is a possibility, and replaced with a quasi sporting event, would the funding be recalled or refunded?

I don't think it is clearly appreciated that the success of any Games, is not the quantity of registrations,but the ability of the host city to support the event with volunteers. It is a massive logistical operation alone and bosting registrations by thousands over the FGG recommended levels would present huge organisational challenges. Past experiences have shown this to be the case.

A few things to know:

The Montreal committee requested arbitration with the FGG. The FGG refused.

It's not a boast that there is funding on hand. It's a fact. There is over $5 million Cdn. currently guaranteed funding.

The FGG wants to maintain control of funds raised by the organizing committee. This includes funding from 3 levels of (Canadian) governments and corporate monies. The Federation is asking the committee to accept that they should not be responsible for money they have raised, and for which they are legally responsible under Canadian law, never mind the fact that most of the Federation are not Canadian citizens.

This is a complicated issue, but it's not a question of the committee here not being forthcoming. And I think it's a bit premature to suggest that the Montreal committee needs to work on recruiting volunteers. In fact, they have been doing that already, and have a very methodological and detailed timetable for finding them. People on gay teams in Montreal (me for instance), are well aware of how hard the committee is working.

Nah, I played softball only. We met in an elevator of the host hotel. I thought he was way cute and looked at those badges that everyone was wearing around their necks. I remembered the name and when I got to the lobby, called hotel info and was connected to his room. We had a date and some *cough* amazing sex */cough* A totally cute philosophy major who was a bit of a geek? How could I resist! If you ever see him, tell him that a guy he "did" at Gay Games and went to MOCA with has warm fuzzy memories about it!

Runningman, question for you. If the plug is pulled on the Montreal bid, where does all the non-government money go? That is, say, the Montreal committee has raised funds independant of the goverment but the event is cancelled, does it just get returned or does FGG have a claim?

Who WAS the second-place city anyways?

[ October 22, 2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Pretty sure the second place city was Atlanta. Chicago was also in the running, as well as Dallas, but I seem to remember that Atlanta was second.

Man, I hope they pull this together. I have been bragging on how wonderful the gay games are and talking all my friends into going. I think the number of athletes are going to be considerably more some for the same reason Jim didn't go to A'damm or Sydney but is going to Montreal, there are lots of people who can get there but the other two were just too damn expensive. More people will go simply because more people are out and interested than in 1994. My little visit to Montreal last weekend really encouraged me, the city is beautiful, smaller than Sydney (or Atlanta, and not nearly as hot and humid), with a well-defined gay area and great facilities since it has hosted an olympics in the past. But if it isn't done soon it may be too late to pull everything together. So please, FGG and Montreal, quit fighting and sign the thing.

And besides, we need the gay games for more stories like Jim's NY romance and "cough" great sex "cough".

great post bball! I've bragged to my friends too about the experiences at GGs. And many have expressed interest in 2006 Montreal, since it is not 'off-continent'. Let's rally! :cool:

That's a good question, but I think most of the money so far is from government sources. I think Montreal's position is that they can't generate sponsor interest if they don't have more than the 12000 athletes (I think it's possible some major partners have told them that...). You can find out more about their position on the Montreal2006 website, but I think without a contract, FGG would be SOL on funds already raised.

bballrob,
The official vote count for the Gay Games 2006 has never been made public so the votes of the other bidding cities is unknown.

The other bidding cities may or may not still be interested in holding the Gay Games 2006 and with the continuing Montreal debacle the conditions for a new round of bids, I would suggest, would be somewhat tighter.All academic though at this stage

It is unfortunate that the situation has gone on for so long. In a normal business setting taking two years to sign this type contract would never be tolerated. I hope it is resolved, with a positive outcome, even before the November deadline.

Runningman, a few things for you to know:

The more I look into this the more I am surprised at how this matter has been allowed to fester . I would like to know what the FGG has been doing for the past two years and why they did not put a reasonable timetable, say three months, on having the contract executed by both parties.

The Montreal committee may have requested abritration but as there is no contract there is nothing to abritrate on. I suggest mediation or even mitigation, would right now, be the appropriate course.

It is absolutely crucial that the FGG be fully briefed on proposed funding arrangements both government and corporate, and be generally right across these issues. Actually, the FGG should have a board member on the board of the Montreal organising Commitee to monitor developments and oversee the progress and report back to the FGG Board. This is what occurred with the IOC and SOCOG prior to Sydney 2000 and it worked very well.There were no secrets.

It is imperative that the details of all types of funding,projections including the business plans be made available to FGG and that all negotiations and/or arrangements be transparent.This is good business pratice. There appears to be some scepticism here and this is probably due to the fact that the contract is not yet in place. Are we re-inventing the wheel???

Lets remember that FGG own The Gay Games and all the legal entities of the participating countries. Surely in the FGG there are wise heads who have watched as the previous four Gay Games started with lofty expectations and ended in financial strife. It is understandable they do not want this to happen again.

Lets hope the mediation which I understand is under way now gets a result.

Does anyone have an opinion on why the previous Games were financial messes? I know the Amsterdam Games really had some major problems; is it that there's wishful-thinking financial projections not nearing what the reality is?

Hi xanthos,

These are quotes for Montreal2006's Oct. 17 press release:

"In response to this demand [for arbritration], The Negotiation Committee of the Federation and Montreal 2006 held a conference call yesterday [Oct.16]. The Federation has rejected arbitration and continues in its demands. Although the FGG has refused to meet with us face to face, we have agreed to continue negotiations on the points of contention."

"...the FGG insists on having total control over how these resources are spent." (my italics)[The $5 million I referred to above.]

"In the almost two years since Johannesburg, there have been three contracts that Montreal 2006 was prepared to sign. In each instance an unrecognizable version of the License Agreement has arrived back to us with an entirely new set of onerous and excessive demands." (italics in the original.)

I should point out that the overwhelming wish of the organizers in the release and the meeting they held with us is to resolve this amicably with the Federation. (And they have presented their projections to the Federation.)

Cheers.

IS THE FEDERATION OF GAY GAMES JUST VERY DISFUNCTIONAL AND DISORGANISED?

I’m a former FGG member and have participated at four Gay Games thus far and I would like to share some of my thoughts with you.

Founded 24 years ago the Federation of Gay Games has grown old and hard of hearing. Where has the Spirit of Tom Waddell disappeared to I can’t help but ask myself?
In my opinion the Gay Games Federation in its current state is unable to evolve into an organized, financially sound, staffed and pro-active organization it should be. The FGG today appears to be a dysfunctional, virtual and non - representative governing body that resembles more a private club then a world governing sports body.
Void of services to members, (no tangible services are offered to sporting teams worldwide); sadly lacking in human resources (no permanent staff and insufficient financial backing have plagued the organization since their inception); no democratic and representative structure is present at the FGG (only 26 teams worldwide are voting members of the FGG in spite of the fact that more then a 1000 teams and organizations exist worldwide. And last but not least it takes two long years for a sporting organization to become a voting member at the FGG which in my mind doesn’t encourage membership.

Saddled with what appears to be an arrogant, autocratic and legalistic leadership and management approach the FGG board of directors have no viable vision for the development and support of Gay Sports worldwide. That’s my read on the situation. In the face of increasing worldwide demand for athlete participation at the Gay Games the FGG’s only solution is to decrease the number of participants.

In the higher interest of the Gay and Lesbian Sports Community worldwide the pertinence of the existence of the FGG as the International Gay and Lesbian Sports governing body has to be seriously questioned before irreparable and permanent damage to the Gay and Lesbian Sports Movement occurs through misguided and inappropriate actions.

It would seem to me that a handful of misguided, zealous but very devoted FGG representatives have created an impasse by not negotiating the FGG Licensing Agreement with the Montreal 2006 Organising Committee.
How is it possible that in the 24 month following Montreal’s winning bid to host the Games in 2006 there still is no signed contract agreed to by the FGG? Apparently Montreal already signed and sent a proposed version of the Licensing Agreement which the FGG has refused to acknowledge!

3 years into organising the Games and after having spent over one million dollars the Montreal Organising Committee is now being threatened by the FGG of losing the right to use the Gay Games VII trademark unless Montreal accepts a legally and financially unacceptable Licensing Agreement that appears to be crippled by excessive and unwarranted controlling measures. (Participation set at 12,000 and FGG budget spending control of Canadian public and private funds).
It seems to me that as the FGG is not legally responsible for these funds and the FGG does not contribute to Montreal 2006 funding their demand is indeed most unreasonable The FGG should not expect to exercise spending control over Canadian Quebec and City of Montreal public funds that have been allocated to the Montreal 2006 Organising Committee. Any comparison to the Olympic Games is not appropriate here. The Olympic Games (CIO) have certain controls over an Olympic Organizing Committee but then again the Olympic Games (CIO) provides millions of dollars to the host city and organising committee. Such is not the case with the FGG on the contrary. FGG receives a hefty price for the usage of their trademark (approximately 1 million Can) but provides limited services to a host organization.

The conflict stems from the FGG desire to scale down the Games to a point of financial irresponsibility and their insistence to micro-manage the event to a point
of taking over the Montreal organization management of the Games without taking on the legal and financial responsibility for the funds. The absurdity of the whole situation is only equalled by their persistent and irrational stubbornness of wanting to scale down the Games to the detriment of the athletes and the development of the Gay and Lesbian sport movement worldwide. All prior host cities and organizations of the Gay Games have had a difficult, most difficult relationship with the FGG. Let me ask the question again: Where has the spirit of Tom Waddell disappeared to?

What about the athletes that will not be able to participate if the FGG gets it way?
What about the cultural participants that will not be able to participate if the FGG gets it way? The Gay Games are all about PARTICIPATION, INCLUSION AND PERSONAL BEST and are not based on EXCLUSION.

The current leaders of the FGG have not only hijacked the vision of the Gay Games organization but it would seem that they are now sadly lacking in long term vision , marketing and communication expertise, management skills and negotiation savvy.
In my mind the time has come to ask the question that no one dares to ask are the current leaders of the FGG going to bring the FGG to financial ruin and ultimately to reduce the Federation to total irrelevant status and influence? When will the Gay and Lesbian Sports movement create a real representative and progressive Federation that is capable of dealing with the real issue that is at stake namely the Future of the Gay and Lesbian Sport movement?
I have sadly and personally come to believe that a major change of direction is now needed and some serious thought has to be given not only to the future of the Gay and Lesbian Sports movement but to the pertinence of creating a new more progressive representative and real International Gay and Lesbian Sports Federation.

Federation Letter to Gay Games Constituents

With respect to anonymous posters such as runningman and pm7233, whatever your opinions, they are one-sided.  I will post more of a personal nature later.  My only purpose of signing onto the board at this point is to copy the open letter to all Gay Games constituents distributed by the Federation today, 22 October 2003 to all 9k Sydney 2002 athletes.  -- Gene Dermody, Individual Director, Federation of Gay Games

Dear Gay Games participants, friends and supporters,

Many members of our community are aware that negotiations between the Federation of Gay Games and Montréal 2006 (M2006) are at a difficult point. We are saddened and disappointed that M2006 has chosen to bring into the public arena details of the negotiations whilst they are still taking place. We believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that you have accurate information about the situation and that is why we are writing to you.

>>The Federation of Gay Games is committed to the 2006 Gay Games being a success

The Federation’s mission is to assist the hosts of Gay Games in producing the most successful possible event from all points of view, including income generation and number of participants. This is our own reason to exist and we have an utmost commitment to do the same with the 2006 Gay Games host.

We are not seeking to impose a ceiling on the number of participants. The Federation is well aware that the return of the Gay Games to the North American continent would naturally generate a higher attendance at the event. We ourselves said just that when announcing the four candidate cities for the 2006 Gay Games.

Our movement has experienced four consecutive Gay Games ending in deficits with at least three host organizations struggling and ultimately unable to deliver everything they had hoped and promised. It is the Federation’s ethical duty and a part of our core mission to ensure that this pattern stops. We cannot continue to allow a situation where some members of our local communities are left with unpaid credits, some even with lifetime debts.

The Federation requested that M2006 adopt a more prudent approach: a conservatively-sized initial plan that has a built-in flexibility to grow when additional income is secured. Unfortunately, the plan currently proposed by M2006 is based on a budget forecasting an income that is roughly double the forecast income of the Sydney Gay Games. Sydney 2002 did not realize all its forecast income and was left with a deficit.

It is the Federation’s position that the final size and scope of the event will uniquely depend on M2006’s ability to make a reality of their most optimistic dreams, yet remaining financially responsible.

No one would be happier than members of the Federation should M2006 succeed in surpassing the best possible provisions for the number of participants, as for any other aspect of the event.

>>The Federation is not seeking to micromanage the event

The Federation does not seek to control or micromanage the way M2006 allocates its resources or income provided by government sources. The Federation requests some legitimate rights of supervision in the use of its brand and the production of the event. These are customary in this type of agreement between a licensor and licensee, and previous hosts such as Sydney 2002 have willingly complied. These matters are still areas of negotiation.

>>We are your elected representatives and are working to safeguard your interests

As some of you have pointed out on various Internet discussion boards, the Federation of Gay Games is nothing like the IOC. The Federation is a group of committed volunteers who have acquired a great deal of knowledge from 20 years of Gay Games experiences. Many of you, the participants in our event and its supporters, have elected or appointed members of the Federation board to defend your best interests. You have our word that, in our negotiations with M2006 and in all the choices we face, we will be uniquely driven by your best interests.

>>The Federation remains committed to negotiating in good faith with M2006

Our priority is to have a successful Gay Games in 2006 where our community can meet again and reunite after four years of training, excitement and preparation. The Federation remains committed to negotiating in good faith with M2006 until November 7.

You can count on our unfaltering commitment to make Gay Games VII a great success. We hope that we can count on your continued support of the Gay Games movement.

Roberto Mantaci and Kathleen Webster
Co-Presidents
Federation of Gay Games

My name is Hugh Cawker, I am a member of Les Galopins/Frontrunners Montreal, I am not a member of the organizing committee of the Montreal 2006, and I have no other affiliation with the Federation of Gay Games. I have no vested interest except that I have every confidence in the people I have met on the Montreal organizing committee, and I think they have a realistic and well-organized plan to run a successful games here. I also think it would be disastrous for Gay sport if the negotiations fall through. Details of the negotiations were made public by Montreal2006 only after Charles Carson spoke to Outsports. I have not released any information that was not in the press release issued by Montreal 2006.

Thank you Mr. Dermody for releasing a copy of that letter to this board.The situation is now a lot clearer.

There has been a lot of misinformation and FGG bashing here so it was interesting to read of the Federations's view.

Good luck with the continuing negotiations.

I'll just say this to those involved on both sides of the issue: GET IT TOGETHER AND GET THE DEAL DONE. I think the Gay Games are too important to screw around like this.

Erm, not for me. That press release was long on platitudes but short on specifics. Except this:

Show me the Numbers...

I have to be really careful here, as an individual Federation Director. I have competed in all 6 Gay Games, organized, coached, and committed the last 10 years to the Federation. I have a lot invested in the success of the Gay Games, so don't read negativity, read reality check.

Since Jim and others are talking figures (as we should), I want to throw out some rhetorical questions.

The Olympics limits itself logistically to 10K -athletes- in order to make their event more portable, predictable, and manageable. Could they handle more if they wanted to? Why don't they?

We all know the registration#s for the past 3 Gay Games were reported as approximately 14K, 12K, and 11K respectively.

How many times did you hear that the Gay Games were bigger than the Olympics? Is this a valid comparison?

What % of these figures were for sports, culture, conferences, coaches, officials, media, and volunteers?

Did you even know that Gay Games -DO- count these participants as registrants?

How many times did you hear that there were 13K athletes in Sydney 2002? Do you know what the final numbers really were?

What % of these registrants were "no shows" (canceled out at the last minute)?

What % of these registrants did -not- show up for their event, picked up their participation medal, and only marched in the opening cermonies?

The point is that there is a lot of hype built around the registration#s of the Gay Games that needs to be debunked if the event is to have the integrity and credibility it deserves.

We are all so emotionally committed to the success of the Gay Games that we are willing to foster this myth of limitless registrations.

We really need to be honest with with sponsors, government, and ourselves as to these registration#s since they drive the host budgets and contracts.

It is no secret why tourism & travel just love to hype the 'Pink Dollar' and just inflate the Gay Games projections.

How many of these people who are taking the Federation to task are Canadians in the travel & tourism industry?

I could just go on with the questions, having the NY'94, Amsterdam'98, and Sydney'02 regstration data bases at my finger tips.

But it has basically been a numbers game, a house of cards, that the past 4 Gay games hosts have been trapped by in an effort to win their bids with the bigger is better promise.

Stay tuned, answers to come...

Jim, yes I did note those comments in the Co-Presidents letter but thoughht it was unhelpful to comment further.

For interest, have a look at the leading article in todays Sydney Star Observer: www.ssonet.com.au

From the linked article: First time I've heard of TV rights being sold. These questions from Gene are the pertinent ones for me:

First, thank you, Hugh, for identifying yourself. The board should know that Hugh and I have never met. I appreciate everyone’s understanding while I speak for myself.

A month ago, Outsports.com contacted the Federation, not vice versa. The answer to most of the questions asked was that the Federation is still negotiating and is hopeful of reaching agreement with Montréal 2006 about Gay Games VII. I was asked virtually the same list of questions that Montréal 2006 put in the “What You Might Want to Know” section of the information they distributed widely on Saturday, October 18. I mention that because it was an indication to me that Outsports had treated both sides fairly by asking the same questions. I was surprised at some of the questions myself, because I wondered where Outsports got its information.

But that is the media’s job, and I’m not going to criticize them for it, and no one else should either. The article was accurate as far as the Federation is concerned. Montréal 2006 did not check with the Federation to inquire about what I said to Outsports before releasing its lengthy press statements last weekend. It was their decision to go into so much detail.

Discussions about what is proper to put in the media have been going on with Montréal 2006 for many months. We have in fact spoken up and defended Montréal 2006 about certain matters on more than one occasion, including here on Outsports. In another instance, Montréal 2006 objected to elements of a proposed Federation press release reviewing the Sydney Gay Games, particularly some comparisons between Sydney and Montréal and the growth of the games, as having a potential negative effect on their organizing efforts. We listened and revised that release to take their concerns into account before distributing it, and their spokesperson’s thanks is still in my file.

During that same period, we also discussed with Montréal 2006 the fact that there were journalists who have followed the Gay Games closely and who knew a License Agreement still had not been signed. We said that eventually the media, after taking a break from covering Sydney, would begin coming around asking how things were going for 2006. We said we would not seek press about the contract negotiations, but should journalists come to us we would answer their questions. And that’s what happened.

Charlie Carson
Individual Director and Secretary
Federation of Gay Games

I'm a little bit concerned about innuendo in Gene's post. I've tried to limit my comments to information presented in the Montreal press release, not much of which I think he has addressed. I also, living in Montreal, have access to the organizing committee's pre-planning, since I am in the community where they are doing their outreach, and have a pretty good idea about what they're doing. The committee has a strong relationship with local teams, and are doing all the right things in keeping us involved in the process. They have good communication and liaison people, and they are listening to community concerns. This seems positive, no?

I am more skeptical than most about the "pink dollar." I think more to the point is that Canada is engaged in a huge public debate about Gay rights and marriage, and we have three levels of government committed to this event. Gay rights are now seen as part of the fabric of Canadian culture, to the extent that our federal government and national network support the Games here.

It would be false to say encouraging tourism is not on the agenda. I wish we didn't have to keep justifying our financial viability to Chambers of Commerce and the hospitality industry, but alienating them by suggesting that it's them that are running the Montreal organization is just ridiculous. Certainly, it has nothing to do with my bashing the Federation, if that's how my questions are characterized. I'm a pianist.

I'm a little mystified about athletes that pay to get into the opening ceremonies, and then don't turn up to events. Amsterdam and Sydney are nice and all, but who the f**k flies there for thousands of dollars for a nice medal. In any case, those people pay to come, and then don't cost in terms of athlete support. Am I missing something here? If what you seem to be saying is that Montreal's projections about participation are unrealistic, come out and say it. Personally, I think they are low. Montreal is close to major centres of US population, and has historic ties to Europe, and is a frequent European travel destination. I can fly cheaper to London or Paris than I can to Winnipeg. It's a multi-racial, multi-cultural, international, gay destination.

The organizing committee has done strong community work and responsible financial planning. They are the first to have daily national television coverage. The community, city, province, country, and national network support them. What is the problem?

Questions arising from Montreal 2006’s press release

Can runningman at least dispense with the Kumbaya language (OutReach, Gay Marriage, etc..) as if the Federation did not share a lot of those concerns? The Federation does recognize those positives, but they are not the only criteria for host selection. In fact they are a given.

Since runningman thinks that one should confine oneself to “information presented in the Montreal press release” I will do so. The problem is that the “information” raises many more questions than it answers (especially since he seems to know more than I do!).
Here are some.

Why uniquely among Gay Games hosts from New York onwards does Montreal 2006 refuse to make its sponsorship agreements open to scrutiny by the FGG? (The sentence in the press release “It goes without saying that we have presented these agreements to the FGG” is patently false. Montreal 2006 has in fact refused to make these documents available to the FGG.) What is there to hide in them? Just what rights, for example, have they given away in their agreement with Radio Canada? Note that they say in the press release “This agreement is worth $1 million CA ($721,449 US) in services” – ie, no cash apparently involved (not that the FGG would know since Montreal 2006 refuses to reveal the details). How does this fit with their bid book budget that allocated $500,000 income to “television and web rights”? Why did they leap into an agreement of that kind, disposing of television and radio rights, three years before the Games?

On a related topic, why did an “unprecedented team of professionals” raise not one whisper of objection to the terms of the pro forma contract annexed to the bid – despite being invited to do so – which contained a clear right of approval for the FGG over media contracts, and then go and enter a media contact with Radio Canada, totally at variance with the terms of every draft of the contact from 2000 to date, without the FGG’s approval?

How can a body whose total “guaranteed” INCOME to date is $5.025 million but which has SPENT $1.5 million of that “income” seriously say that “Our total assets to this day amount to $5.025 million CAD”. Assets equal capital and income less liabilities and expenditure where I come from.

Montreal 2006 has agreed to the inclusion, in every draft of the contract since late 2001, of a clause that OBLIGES them to the FGG on pain of breach of contract to spend their budget in accordance with the parameters of a detailed budget. How can they now say that the inclusion of such an obligation amounts to the use of Canadian tax dollars “being determined by a small group of people directing the FGG”. Did they even bother to read the earlier drafts (including the ones they say they were prepared to sign)? Or is the sound-bite “the FGG insists on having total control over how these resources are spent” just irresistibly more sexed-up?

Why, given that for nearly a year, Montreal 2006 has accepted that the cultural festival must be cut back to a Rainbow Run, a choral festival and a bands festival, does it continue to budget costs of $700,000 CA for those events? Why do they insist on clinging to a figure of $500,000 CA for “Women’s Outreach” which, according to their bid book, is for the “accommodation of approximately 225 female outreach participants”? Is that the sort of luxury that a host city can afford in its initial planning after the calamitous financial collapse of its four predecessors?

Why, 24 hours after promising to give written agreement a set of requirements for continued negotiations, did Montreal 2006 instead issue an inflammatory and inaccurate press release?

What “unprecedented team of professionals” would continue to peddle the completely misleading claim that “there have been three contracts that Montréal 2006 was prepared to sign” when the first of those three was a document that included bracketed and incomplete phrases including: This draft paragraph anticipates a licensing fee of $655,000. The licensing fee reflects the amount Sydney is paying for Gay Games VI. You should minimally figure that amount into your budget for 2006 as we do not anticipate that figure being any lower for Gay Games VII. Please note that this could be raised to a higher figure as well. Each city should budget to accommodate minimally this amount, and a set fee will be established during negotiations along with a fee schedule for payment.]

If the point is, as claimed, to reach a “mutually satisfactory agreement”, what was the point of signing 50+ copies of an agreement that had NOT been mutually agreed and sending them around the world to all FGG directors last week at a cost of several thousand dollars (~3K USD)? Might that sort of extravagance be an explanation why $1.5 million has been spent to date? Might it be an explanation of why Montreal 2006 has 11 paid staff at a time when previous hosts have had largely volunteer organisations coordinated by much smaller paid staffs?

Why should the FGG not approach these negotiations with a very healthy degree of scepticism about Montreal 2006’s sincerity?

These are public and community monies being spent by an unelected body. Why are not Canadians among the first to be clamouring for whatever external supervision is available? What licensor of an event does not require these sorts of controls? What sort of licensee rejects them?

I will get back to the rhetorical numbers game next time.. like the competition of Divers/Cite and Gay Games VII for the -very- limited hotel rooms.

Man, you need to relax. I understand that negotiations are going badly, but you're overreacting to my posts. I pointed out that I was enumerating press release information because you flamed me for being anonymous. I also have been asking, "What is the problem?" Thanks for some of the details.

Your crap about kumbayah language hit a nerve, because personally I couldn't give a shit about gay marriage, but I was trying explain that gay identity and rights are being debated in Canada on a national level, and really, that kind of support for a gay event is unprecedented. We see that here as a window of opportunity. (Believe me, I know all about the Weimar Republic.)

You can bitch about whether the team is being up front with you all you want - they have done a good job, though, of mobilizing community support, and I can't really say that you're doing a great job of that for the Federation.

As to wanting an external watchdog on unelected officials spending taxpayers money, and you're going to have to suck this one up, given the Federation's track record on previous financial success at the Games, why would we choose them?

I want there to be a negotiated settlement with the Federation. Whatever. It's well out of my hands. Nothing I've seen from the Federation has given me any confidence that they have a better strategy than the organizers, and dude I'm sorry, but your track record speaks volumes. Pushing the rhetorical level this way is really counter productive, and not what I intended by my posts. It has given me some insight into the mindset of some Federation members. I'd like to feel that there was some unified strategy to deal with this, but really, I'm not seeing it.

runningman, you just don't get it, do you???

I may be the voice of dissent here but I have to commend runningman and pm7233 for the valid questions they have raised on behalf of the gay athletes pertaining to the ongoing "battle" between Montreal 2006 and the FGG....although, unlike the aforementioned members, I have yet to attend any of the games myself (yet) I have read every comment on this thread and after rereading the most recent posts of Gene Dermody and Xanthos I find the overall tone of their arguments to be quite disturbing, to say the least....while Mr. Dermody should be rightfully commended for sharing his first-hand views with Outsports, when he is certainly under no obligation to do so, the fact that he has chosen to venomously attack and question an active participant in the games in the manner in which he exhibited raises some serious questions in my view....as pm7233 (a former FGG member himself) eloquently stated earlier, the Gay Games are supposed to be about "PARTICIPATION, INCLUSION AND PERSONAL BEST", which a present director of the FGG seems diametrically opposed to based upon the content of his own statements.

Although Mr. Dermody has expressed his views as to the lack of authenticity of the press releases concerning the negotiations, he should keep in mind that the rest of us are not privy to the specific information shared during those negotiating sessions and, as a result, we are reliant upon the media as our primary source of information....as to his reasons for criticizing the Montreal 2006 organizing committee for releasing ANY information to the press (after nearly TWO YEARS of failed negotiations, I might add) that raises additional questions altogether as to his (and the Federation's) motives.

The mere fact that Gene chose to severly chastise a current gay athlete throughout his most recent post by questioning his use of the "kumbaya language" of OutReach and Gay Marriage along with the valid questions that runningman (and others) raised with regard to the recent press releases leads me to believe that Mr. Dermody is either very frustrated by the lack of progress that has resulted from the ongoing negotiations and those frustrations have become readily apparent in his writings or he truly does not have the best interests of the gay athlete at heart, which I certainly hope is not the case....in either event, if the tone expressed in his most recent post is indicative of his true feelings and level of communication with the Montreal 2006 organizers then it is no wonder that the two sides have reached this apparent impass at the 11th hour (which btw, from all indications, the Nov. 7th deadline was set by FGG and NOT by Montreal 2006).

As runningman and others have expressed, we all should be seeking to achieve the same goal, and that is making decisions that are ultimately in the best interests of the ATHLETES (whether that number be 10K, 15K, 20K or 30K) that will be traveling across the globe to participate in less than three years....sadly, there appears to be strong indications that power, greed and arrogance are playing a MUCH bigger role than should EVER take place. :mad:

To quote the former FGG member, pm7233, "Where has the spirit of Tom Waddell disappeared to?"....we can only hope that for the sake of those in Montreal who have already invested tremendous time, effort and resources to bring the games to Quebec that it is not too late to rekindle the values that enabled the Gay Games to become a reality nearly 20 years ago....perhaps some individuals may need to swallow their pride and be reminded of these founding principles of Mr. Waddell in order to ensure that his noble efforts (along with those of countless others over the years) have not been in vain.

[ October 24, 2003, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I don't want to get caught in the cross-fire here, but Gene's last post--despite the unfortunate use of "Kumbaya language"--got down to the nitty-gritty for me. I think there's spin going on from both sides, but, I'm sorry Runningman, the Montreal side is going to have to come up with concrete answers and not just rely on press releases to make their points. It's nice to say "They're doing a good job of outreach" but is it too much to ask for specific answers at this point?

I realize that maybe both sides don't want to conduct negotiatons in the press, but I found this kind of disturbing:

It may really be that I don't get it. What we have to go on is the Montreal press release. If I visit the Federation page, the last press release is over a year old. I live in this community and will probably continue to do so after the Games are over, and the team here has been outspoken and visible and doing their best to get their message out. I don't think I can be blamed if the Federation hasn't. Clearly members of the Federation have different interpretations of the negotiations. I am not party to the negotiations, and believe me, I wouldn't want to go near them. The Federation is going to have to work hard here, though, to counter the perception that it is disorganized, petty, and difficult to work with, whatever the reality of the situation. Given the tone of some of the posts, I'm starting to believe that it is. And I'm not sure if the FGG understands the Quebecois/Canadian context in which the organizing committee is working (not an easy task, even if you live in it).

I'm not trying to avoid the numbers questions. I think they are vital, but I also don't get the impression there is an understanding of the Canadian public funding system on the Federation side. (Maybe culture is a better word than system.) I also know you won't make any points by slagging the committee for selling TV rights to Radio-Canada. I know it's a small market, but it is what network television has looked like in Canada for as long as there has been TV. (It's like pissing on the flag - it just alienates people.) And as the committee has pointed out, it represents the first sale of its kind in the history of the Games. I'm not up on the ins and outs of contract law, but if a contract has not been signed, and they had this opportunity, why not pursue it? It wasn't any secret that they were negotiating with SRC.

Anyway, I look forward to more of Gene's posts. It seems like getting a rise out of him is a great way of getting information. I'm on vacation till Tuesday. Have a great weekend!

I want to thank Gene and runningman and Jim Allen and pm7233 and everyone else who is posting, some to blow off steam, some to give information, some to seek information.

It concerns me that on this thread, which I see as a very important discussion of the problems between the FGG and Montreal, runningman has to be the front man for Montreal even though he has no connection with the Organizing Committee. He and pm7233 have raised many valid concerns but it should not be his role to answer Gene and his posts. I wish someone from the Montreal Organizing Committee would respond to Gene's statements, either agreeing, disagreeing or avoiding the statements. At least we would have more knowledgable about the positions that Montreal takes, right now we are guessing and surmising from press statements.

And, I can say this because I am an attorney, the debate sounds familiar, like a husband and wife airing their dirty laundry in a public divorce. The two sides need to sit down, maybe with a mediator, but definitely in the same room, and WORK THIS OUT. Statements and the media releases have hurt rather than helped the situation, because, just like Jim Allen stated, both sides want to spin this to win support. The problem is that neither side should want to win support because both are trying to get the same thing, a successful gay games. The word here should be COMPROMISE, not spin. It also sounds like too many lawyers are in the room.

Gene, is it hard to get the committee together? Is there a subcommittee that deals with this? Are there any face to face meetings planned? That is what needs to happen, preferably with a 3rd party mediator that can move everyone toward the middle. Is there a problem with a mediator?

I assume the FGG knows that if you screw this up, there will be irreparable harm to the FGG. It may be the deathnell of the games themselves. That would be a heartbreaking tragedy. All of us that attended the games in the past appreciated the wonderful work of the FGG, after all it is a volunteer organization. I know it is a thankless job, but it is the job you have volunteered to do, so thanks so much, now get it done!

[ October 24, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: bballrob ]

My name is Tom Czerniecki, Marketing Communications Director Montreal 2006. Please find below a letter from Montreal 2006 Co-presidents. By posting this letter we are hoping to answer some of your pressing questions with regards to the current situation. Thank-you kindly for posting your comments, opinions and concerns.
Tom Czerniecki

LETTER FROM MONTRÉAL 2006

Montreal, 24 October 2003

Dear Athletes, Friends, and Montréal 2006 Supporters,

First, we would like to thank you for the outpouring of support we have received from all over the world over the past couple of days. Your encouragements are very much appreciated, and we re-state our commitment to you to deliver the best sports program and Games the GLBT global community has ever seen in 2006.

We apologize for sending you another document, but please remember as this negotiation becomes more public that there is always more than one way to look at a situation. Sometimes information that is given publicly does not always represent the spirit of private correspondence and negotiations behind closed doors.

In the spirit of transparency, Montréal 2006 would like to offer a few points of clarification to the correspondence you received from the Federation of Gay Games (FGG).


Public Communication of the Negotiation Process

It was with great disappointment that Montréal 2006 learned that Mr. Charlie Carson, FGG Secretary, chose to speak publicly to a media outlet regarding the current state of negotiations. It was this interview to Outsports that sparked mainstream media requests in our market in Montréal, which then led to the necessity of releasing a formal organizational response from Montréal 2006 in the form of a press release on 16 October 2003. It was mutually agreed that neither party would speak to a media representative until after negotiations had reached a conclusion. Unfortunately Mr. Carson chose to ignore this agreement.


The Federation’s Mission of Assisting Hosts of Gay Games

Montréal 2006 appreciates the role the FGG states it plays in assisting host cities to deliver successful Games. Unfortunately to date, two years into the delivery of Gay Games VII, Montréal 2006 has not received a single piece of such information to assist us in the preparation of our event in 2006.

Recognizing the importance of past Games experiences, and for prudent, realistic planning for our event, Montréal 2006, at its own expense, brought the former Sports Director of Sydney 2002 to Montréal for six weeks. Montréal 2006 takes lessons from the past very seriously, and has done everything in its power to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated. While in Montréal, the Sydney 2002 Sports Director worked with the Montréal 2006 team to create a detailed analysis of our plans, including forecasted income generation and participation numbers that for the first time would create Games delivered on budget. Financial prudence has always been a priority for Montréal 2006 and will continue to be so.


Size and Scope

The Federation has requested that Montréal 2006 adopt a more prudent approach with a conservatively sized initial plan that has a built in flexibility to grow when money is secured. Montréal 2006 has always agreed with this idea in principle. As the organizing committee we have to face the challenge of putting this principle into action while also honouring the natural growth within the GLBT global sport movement.

Did you know that we have compromised significantly on the numbers of participants, reducing our projections from 24,000 to 16,000 participants? Did you also know that there is a bottom line cost per athlete to compete in the Games? And that is the job of the host organization to finance the participant’s costs? The delivery of financially viable Games does not translate into reducing the size or the scope. Many of our costs are fixed, so the cost of delivering the event does not go down proportionately if you reduce the number of participants. In fact, in our analysis, we have discovered that Games of 10,000 or even 12,000 athletes is a money-losing proposition. What the FGG is proposing in using those numbers as a starting point is to repeat the failures of the past. The numbers of participants that is the “break even” starting point for Montréal is 15,540 athletes with a budget of $16 million CA.

The Federation has also stated that the plan proposed by Montréal 2006 is based on a budget forecasting an income that is roughly double the forecast income of the Sydney Games. This is false since we have revised our budget from $20 to $16 million CA. What they are also neglecting to add is that 35% of that budget (over $5 million CA) is already secured, with participant registrations and ticket sales, making up another 51% of our revenue. The other 14% comes from the sale of merchandising products, fund-raising activities and sponsorships. Our budget contains a contingency reserve of 10%. As responsible administrators, in the unlikely event that we do not meet our objectives, we have planned cost-cutting scenarios to compensate for any shortfall.

While comparisons to the past are fair, so is looking at the facts of the present. Montréal is the first city to host the Games in North America in 12 years. Montréal is the first host city to enjoy unparalleled support from all levels of government. Montréal is the first host city, three years before the Games, to have a full-time professional staff devoted to its successful delivery. Some of their success already includes the announcement that Montréal will be the first city to have a national television contract.


The Issue of Micromanagement

If you were on a Board of Directors which was held legally accountable for the decisions of a corporation, would it be reasonable that you be expected to give final authority to an outside body to make those financial decisions on your behalf? If the FGG truly wanted only reasonable rights of supervision of our plans we might not find ourselves in an impasse with the negotiations. What the FGG has requested is final approval rights. This after Montréal 2006 has agreed to pay close to a million dollars CA ($655,000 US) in licensing fees for the right to deliver their event.


Your Interests

The Federation, as the official body that represents only 21 of the thousand GLBT sport teams we have found around the world, has pledged that your best interests will drive their negotiations. We offer the same pledge. From day one, the goal of Montréal 2006 is to deliver Games that are inclusive and have the possibility to accommodate the largest number of participants while remaining financially viable. Our vision has not changed.


Lucie Duguay
Mark Tewksbury
Co-Presidents

LOL...yeah, but are you going to add rugby?

I've been hoping they'd add flag football. But, all I've been able to get is the run-around from Montreal and no response from the Federation.