A few unrelated notes first. I think this year "Bon cop bad cop" became the top grossing film of all time in Canada.

To get the Aquatics games back, Montreal had to give financial garantee to FINA, paying for any budget shortfall. Having no infrastructure to build was a reason given for positive outlook regarding Outgames finances in May.

Outgames forecasting no financial shortfall

“We have obtained financial viability,” said Louis Roy,
But Roy’s confidence was a hard sell to the media in a city that is still paying for the 1976 Summer Olympics and was left holding the bag with a $4.77-million deficit after last summer’s FINA World Aquatics Championships. “Unlike other sporting events, we had no need to build any facilities, our sponsors are already with us and we have government money,” Roy said by way of explaining the group’s financial optimism. Roy and Montreal Mayor Gérald Tremblay Monday faced a tough crowd at a news conference. They wanted to know how this gay-themed event could break even where other sporting events have not.

The PQ leader's good judgement has been questioned by some after he participated in a year-end comedy sketch. The end of the sketch, he surprises Bush and Harper in the tent and says Quebec will never get into this. (policies of them) Brokeback Boisclair

Now on the Radio-Canada comedy sketch. The network is usually very politically correct. They contracted with the comedy group to do the year-end comedy show this year. The group is the producer and writers. Their humour can be mean, vulgar so some might find their humour doesn't always fit with Radio-Canada.
That skecth and the one on Afghanistan were the ones that got some criticism. Radio-Canada received only a few a few complaints but didn't say if it was general or a specific sketch. Asked if the Outgames sketch went too far in homosexual satire, one group member said it's big stupidities that's all. Another said it's buffoon humour. It plays on clichés but for humour it's effective. The goal is not to shock.

Commenting on the show, since the next day everyone has an opinion if it was good or bad, what did they like etc., in the Quebec City newspaper on that sketch

the two sports commentators characters were brought back to describe the highligts (pun with buttcheek instead of faits saillants) Outgames. A sketch vulgarly funny with it's 100 metres (crack, pun with haies-hurdles), with a well lubed dildo for baton. Leather, latex and hair medals to the winners, but Derek Tom disappeared in hide and seek play.

In La Presse... the Outgames sketch proved they are masters in the uncles' jokes (I guess that's stupid and low). The two commentators didn't miss one questionable word play, and it's impossible not to laugh. But they took the defense of the Outgames when one says there is nobody in theaters and nobody makes a scandal about it. The other says, in fact at the theater it's also gays.



In another newspaper: will the Outgames sketch make waves in the gay community? The situations were so ridiculous that it would take no sense of homour to be offended. The receptacle for the pole vault will make history.
Another commented he found the sketch funny but others found it scornful.

In Le journal de Mtl: among the irreverent numbers, it's the one about Outgames that distrurbed the most, leaving a bitter taste in the gay community. Athletes lokking like queens or water-polo without swimsuit are scenes that still are acceptable for the gay community. But the pole vaulting scene with a participant laying on the ground to receive the pole went too far. At the gay phone hotline, the scene created uneasiness and left a bitter taste. The president says again we were shown homosexuliaty as sex thing. Homos are able to take it, they have humour but there are side effects. He criticized the fact the event was reduced to expression of sexuality. He thinks of parents of gay children or people in a coming out process. It can be tough.

On the other side, a famous enterntainment commentator who is gay, congratulate the comedy group for ridiculing the Outgames. He said they were right to laugh of this. I've always been against that, gay games, there is no reason to exist, no more than black or yellow games. Gays should participate at all games. They complain about being put aside of society and they form ghettos in organizing ridiculous events like this one.

So we are back at the question ghetto vs integration in having separate games. Maybe the sociologists out there will analyze if the skecth and reaction is a sign of being more acceptant or not. It seems to have shocked only a minority. They year-end is time to laugh at everything and everyone. Gays are not taboo. Some people feel a bit guilty for finding it funny. It didn't provoke outrage.

Is this full acceptance? I read in a free cultural weekly from a writer who became known after her book based on her experience as an escort in December...
then the Outgames in which homosexuality ridiculed itself in giving itself on show, where vulgarity was passed in front of sports performance. You're gay? We don't care. That is the message that Quebec gave in deserting the event. With the millions given in subsidies - social indifference. No this indifference is not a refined form of hate of homosexuality. It's the ultimate end to social acceptance; to which efforts to be integrated lead, the goal of the battle to be collectively admitted. Gays of Quebec be happy. But stop believing your sexual orientation is worth the travelling, stop believing your butt is an attraction. Make yourself woth by your talent, become a Genet, Wilde, Capote, or Yourcenar.

I don't know, I thought maybe there is some backlash because of overexposure in the summer ( too much reporting for what there was to report) and at the end of the year people learn it wasn't a great succes as thought.

Here we go again ...

The Calgary Sun reports that Calgary Tourism is courting gays and lesbian travellers. That's all good of course! The centerpiece? Yup - you guessed it, the 1st North American OutGames, April 1-8, 2007. The prediction? 2500 athletes. If true, this would make this event bigger than any other event on the North American continent, save the Gay Games and OutGames. Bigger than the Gay World Series with its 200 teams, bigger than the NAGVA Volleyball Championships with nearly 1,000 players, even bigger than several of the EuroGames, a proven franchise.

And they predict that this very large number of athletes will be be going to Calgary (a very long way from most of the U.S. and even most of Canada), over the Easter Holiday weekend, when there are more than a dozen competing tournament, including competing events in Canada. Oh - and did I mention that the per person price is more than any other LGBT sports tournament save the Gay Games and OutGames?

To me, it seems obvious that the 2,500 number is an extreme exaggeration. And if Calgary Tourism has bought into the rhetoric, that means local suppliers, vendors, hotels, and community leaders probably have bought into it also. This sound familiar to anyone? I just don't get it.

Does anyone know how many actual registered athletes (and at what price and in what sports) attended the Western Cup last year?

Hey Kevin,

I have participated in Western Cup a total of about 8 times and I was in Calgary last year and dropped in even though I was not participating.

In most of those years they had somwhere around 250 - 300 active participants and probably about the same in weekend guests and weekend pass holders. About 4 years ago they expanded from their core sports of Volleyball, Bowling and Curling to include Badminton.

My guess is that the 2500 number is the same kind of number that is extrapolated by interest in the event.

I sure would hope that they do not expect that many active participants in their sport program. I will be very interested in the number of participants that would travel to Calgary for a Human Rights conference.

I am quite certain that the cost the last time I participated (2005 I think) was C$80.00 per person on my Curling team. The costs this year are totally out of whack.

I am sure that a bunch of Curlers will go from our League in Vancouver as it has become a traditional ending to our season as well as an opportunity to see all of our friends in Calgary.

I do know that there are more than a few that have travelled to Calgary every year no matter what in past years, that are seriously considering not going this year because of the cost. I have also heard that some are considering that a trip to Toronto or Montreal might be better for this year as it will seem like the difference in flight cost will be minimized by the increase in registration fees.

That being said, I think that it is important that Calgary be successful year after year as they are living with the most regressive Provincial government in this country. That government has repeatedly been as negative towards the rights of gays and lesbians as they can given their legislative power. To have a reminder that we will not go away is important in that province.

It will be a shame if the big hopes of the organizers cause them to make the same kind of decisions that were made in Montreal. If that happenned, the future of the Western Cup past 2006 could be jeopardized.

I wish them luck.

Ken

Ken - I agree that the Western Cup seems like a very valuable event. I think multisport events are a great opportunity to bring people together, combine resources, etc. No one wants them to fail. But failure seems inevitable, especially when compared against their goal of 2500 people. Unless, of course, they take the "lets pretend it was a success" page from the M2006 book and not just the "lets exaggerate our potential" page.

Presuming that they're genuine folks, they seem to be falling into a trap. They're allowing themselves and their partners to plan for an event that, if you are right, is 5 to 10 times larger than they've ever had before. There is nothing to suggest this dramatic increase will take place, and as you have pointed out, they might even have fewer folks.

Events that fail to reach their financial or numerical goals by huge amounts not only harm the reputation of local organizers, but they harm all of LGBT sport AND tourism. The danger is that people will begin to view the gay tourism and gay sport movement as exaggerated in their strength, and future opportunities for financial support will be diminished. While neither Calgary tourism nor Copenhage tourism seem to yet have opened their eyes, it's bound to happen sooner or later. This harms all of us - including future Western Cup organizers.

Does anyone have any influence over them to convince them to plan smaller - and cheaper?

I agree. I think 2500 is a HUGE stretch. When I was at the Western Cup two years ago, I believe they had somewhere in the 450 - 500 range between the 4 sports Ken mentioned. About 30 badminton players, 100 or so volleyball players with bowling and curling being the two sports with the larger participant numbers to bring the overall total up to the 450+ range. And the cost was about $100.00 or $110.00 per person including the social events.

The registration prices (when combined with travel costs) are scaring off most potential participants from here. I'll repeat what I said a few weeks ago. Make the $75.00 Party Pac optional to bring the registration fees down to more acceptable levels, otherwise the price is just too high.

Pat - since you're Canadian, support the Western Cup, and have background with GLISA, maybe you can contact the Calgary folks and urge them to make changes so that their event will not fail.

I just wish people would focus more on the sports than the parties. I remember from Sydney 2002, the parties were supposed to bring in all this revenue. Surprise, surprise - they didn't. Then Mardi Gras went broke 2 years later, again because the party revenue started to drop significantly. Mind you, I suppose by making the Party Pac non-negotiable, they could be guaranteeing their funds.

Clearly, some sports like running, swimming etc, where people tend to be in one event can be over in a day or two, but teams typically run for the duration of a games. I know after refereeing and playing basketball in Chicago, the last thing I wanted to do was go out and party all night, knowing full well I had to be back on court the next day, potentially as early as 9am. Just getting the Blue Line back to my hotetl was an effort, but the 5 minute cold shower I had when I got back got me back in the rhythm.

Melbourne Outgames continues to search for its funding. They have a decision point end Jan-early Feb where if they don't have dollars, they don't proceed. Personally, I reckon less than 1 year is a bit of stretch to get such a proposition completed. Even for a 8 sports Eurogames, they provide the host with at least 3-4 years notice.

In terms of cost, this will be a very interesting test of the concept of the pink dollar. If they get even 1,200 people, it will prove that people are prepared to spend money on gay related events. Kevin makes an interesting point about exageration of numbers at these events. Perhaps we will see in the future sponsors taking the number quoted and applying a divisor, say 50% immediately to the number. We do the same at work with proposed benefits to our organisation when a consultant provides them to us. We know that they always quote on the optimistic side. Chicago could quite happily aim for 10-12,000 people attending GG VII - why, because they had a clear track record to base it one. Montreal was hoping for 16,000 and was way off - why - they had NOTHING to base the number on. Clearly, the FGG brand is truly worth something.

Hey Kevin:
I did have a conversation with somebody with the event in Calgary just before Christmas and I know they are reading this board. I strongly urged them to drop the prices now by making the social events optional. I told them that as soon as anybody on an 7 man volleyball team does the math of $165.00 per player and comes up with a figure of $1155.00, compared to usual team fees in the $400.00 - $500.00 range or about $60.00 - $70.00 per person for most tournaments and their event becomes a VERY difficult sale. Drop the $75.00 per person Party Pack from that and the individual price - which I assume would then become $90.00 and I think people could be convinced to go.

Especially when you consider that the Party Pack apparently covers events not only on Friday and Saturday night but a Sunday event too. I suspect with flight schedules as they are out of Calgary, a bunch of people will be leaving town before the Sunday event with most of us having to work Monday. And like JBAL says some more serious athletes are likely going to skip at least one - if not both of the Friday and Saturday night events no matter how fun they are. (And they have always been great fun in the past at the Western Cup - they really do a great job.).

For instance I noticed the estimated v-ball schedule is from 7:30AM - 7:00PM on both the holiday Friday and Saturday. Well if you are up at some ridiculously early hour Friday and end up scheduled early Saturday, what are the odds you will do anything other than dinner and an early night to bed on the Friday night, saving your partying for Saturday?

I would like to see the event be as successful as possible, but to do so they need to make some adjustments to their registration pricing policies.

Pat

It sounds like they're trying to overreach based upon this supposed "bump" they'll get from the OutGames name. Why not just stick with their great event - the Western Cup - and work to expand that over time like they have instead of trying to be something that could be a real mess. I'm sure that they'll discount my own comments as being "anti-Outgames" but in this case, it seems most everyone agrees that an event trying to grow 5 times in size in one year by affiliating with a brand name that just suffered what could be a death blow isn't a good idea. I guess we'll see.

To those in the know, when does the 1 month reprieve for Montreal run out? It must be pretty close

I do not think that anyone can truly say to have been witness to the debate unless they are privy of all the terms of the negotiations and in particular of all the versions of the Licence Agreement that went back and forth between the FGG and M2006.

I also do not think, with all due respect to you hockeypaul, that your judgment is not biased by other unrelated prejudice, either caused by your perception of the IGLIHA experience (which is a different topic, but one that I’d be happy to comment in a separate thread) or by all the spin and lies spread by M2006/Tourisme Montréal ruthlessly malipulating communicators.

I understand that you as Canadian are disappointed that the Gay Games did not go to Montréal, but believe me, no one is more disappointed about that than myself. But I disagree when you, like many other Canadians, are unwilling to acknowledge that one of the two groups -- only because they were your compatriots -- brings a much higher degree of responsibility and want to share that responsibility equally for the failure of the negotiations.

I am confident that anyone who would read those versions of the Licence Agreement could not help seeing one party constantly trying to reopen discussion on items that had already been completely negotiated and ultimately trying to obtain a licence agreement whose terms had nothing to do with the pro forma that they had accepted in principle before being selected.

Obviously, this bad faith in the negotiations also had a negative effect on the personal relationships between the individuals of the two parties, this is most likely to happen during any negotiations where one of the two parties tries to screw the other. But in no way personal feelings were the cause of the failure of the negotiations, bur rather another effect of the true primary cause.

Even I, who was probably the strongest Montréal’s supporter outside Montréal, after witnessing uncountable episodes of questionable ethics coming from M2006, could no longer defend their behavior and attitude and had to acknowledge that the last thing the Gay Games needed was to concede to a group like that one a licence agreement with the terms of absolute freedom they wanted. If anything, for their behavior during the negotiation stage and for their total lack of history and experience in LGBT sports, the M2006 gang proved that they needed a stricter and not a looser oversight from the LGBT sports community, an oversight that only the FGG could provide. I think the facts have showed that we weren’t wrong on that point.

This paragraph is all hindsight, however it cannot be dismissed today. Michel Vastel, a journalist in Montréal said about the ED of M2006 that she is “une incompétente doublée d’une fieffée menteuse” (an incompetent doubled up with an arrant liar) article. I do not intend to express here my personal feelings about this statement of M. Vastel, which I keep for myself. However, for the mathematician in me there are only two possibilities : either when M2006 claimed that they had reached profitability -- including announcing a surplus of $ 200,000 after closing ceremony -- they believed that that was true, or they knew precisely that what they were saying was false. In the former case, what level of competence does that shows? In the latter case, which word would best define these people? In either case -- even if again in hindsight -- why would it have been in the best interest of the Gay Games to entrust this event to such a group?

Even without that hindsight, however, the 50-60 representatives of the numerous LGBT sport organizations who composed the FGG at that 2003 Annual Meeting only served the best interests of the LGBT sports community by refusing to cave in the blackmailing of Louise Roy and her gang. Failure of leadership? Especially with the hindsight we have now, anybody should say that it was rather one of the bravest, most courageous and best decisions that the FGG Board could make to protect the Gay Games and ensure that they remained ownership of the LGBT sports community, including you, travelpat, MartinNyborg, and all the others.

Anyone who would be truly, fully, witness of the debate not only would not wish or ask for the resignation of those individuals and their leaders, but would rather thank them -- humbly and profusely -- for defending the interests of the LGBT sports and for saving the Gay Games from a gang whose motivations, whose intellectual honesty and (with hindsight, after knowing the results of the Out Games fiasco) whose competence were at the very least highly questionable.

Perhaps it was a competence problem and as time pass it became a being truthful problem. It's possible to be overly optimistic to see the best case scenario as happening but at some point reality must sets in. I should look back at Roy's interview but from memory she only knew there would not be a surplus when reports on beer sales, mechandising and tickets came in (she claims). Since she announced a surplus at the end of the games, that would mean there was no interim report during the games ? Maybe but she could have a hint that those sales would not meet expectations. She was asked by media about the 2 for 1 ticket sales if that would throw the finances off plan. There were reports on very empty stands. They had to receive more money to hold the games. At some point it's not possible to realise the plan surplus is in trouble (unless you budgeted a gigantic surplus).

From the reports in December, the creditors meeting should be in February, and possibly at that time someone from or on behalf of the organizing committe will give an explanation on what went wrong. Seeing how they stay away from the media I shouldn't hope for too much...

Don't remember if I posted this radio interview of Municipal Affairs Minister on Radio-Canada. She was asked how come there wasn't a check on how our money was spent sooner. She hoped the Outgames board would give the public explanation. She said the committee raised the bid, made believe economic benefits would be 170 millions.
radio november 14

I found a copy of an article in Le Devoir from the same period.
Le Devoir - november 14
After the games the committee continued to state there would be no deficit.
The city of Montreal forgave the 1 millon dollars loan. The spokesperson refused to call it a subsidy, saying it's not a subsidy because a subsidy is a sum given voluntarily. The city already gave a value of 2.3 million in loaning venues, closing of streets, cleaning, emergency services.

So I went on a little search about Montreal. The mayor on a radio interview said the city was giving 40 free venues and sites, seven people for support, help on logistics and security (police for marathon and cycling criterium).



I found an answer to that in the minutes of the borough council

Authorize $120,000 including taxes and contingency to prepare two sections of Square Viger, excluding a walking overpass (?) over Berri street, and for logistics support during the event for the Viger site and Ste-Catherine street closed to car traffic.

But that sum is probably included in the total value of the city's contribution. In fall 2005 the city's contribution was budgeted to be:


(The 2.3 million is probably not what is in the Outgames books as the city's contribution (why would they consider revenue losses to relocate for example) and is probably not the cash outflow for the city (don't have to pay for the value of facilities.)

Being generous, Montreal sends the tab with the other cities on the island. According to Le Journal de Montréal november 20 the 15 towns on the island will have to pay $700,000 or 20% of Montreal's contribution to Outgames. $200,000 of the 1 million loan forgiven and $500,000 of the 2.5 million in logistic support, personnel loan etc.

The 1 million loan was to be paid back by Outgames according to minutes of the agglomeration council in April 2006.
i.e. 1 million payable back

Also found in April 2006 authorization for loaning two people to help organize the marathon for a value of $55,900 to be paid back to the Montreal marathon after the Outgames and also retain services of another person to coordinate the marathon, a value of $24,900 to be paid back after the games.

Maybe it was not paid back because in the list of creditors the Montreal Marathon is listed as being owed 26,000 of $52,000 and since the amount is close it could be that (but I have no indication it is).

That is an incredible piece of research you have completed!

In light of this information, I would hope that the folks in Copenhagen would become very afraid of the model that GLISA represents as a sound business plan that will produce such good events.

Part of me says that it is okay if the Tourism folks in a given city are really greedy and want these events so bad that they will continually ignore the past results of like events. In those cities where that greed reigns supreme, it is my hope that the persons responsible in government or pseudo-government (like Tourism organizations) lose their jobs due to lack of dilligence.

I was talking to a friend of mine from Toronto (sorry, he didn't know you Pat) and his comment was that he was pissed that the folks in Monreal were allowed to get away with it. He also told me that it was funny how you could not get away from Mark Tewksbury before the OutGames and now you cannot find him. I am tempted to wait until his book is on the bargain shelves to buy a copy to make sure it doesn't get destroyed!

Has anyone heard of there is any intention by the levels of government to hold the OutGames Board responsible for this fiasco in a court of law? Perhaps that would extend to the GLISA Board as well but that would have to be decided in court.

As most people are aware, Tom Waddell almost lost his house in a court battle to keep the Gay Games going. That philosophical argument was admirable and a sign of those times. I would hate to think that feduciary responsibilities was the new centuries response to the USOC vs Waddell court case.

Ken

Hey Ken - somebody in Toronto and they don't know me! ;-)

I tend to agree with you that somebody or some people on the Montreal Board need to be accountable and perhaps criminal proceedings are in order if it can be proven they knowingly entered agreements with suppliers knowing in advance that there was a very good likelihood they would not be paid. So the people who signed those contracts and those who had signing authority for the money being distributed by the Montreal organizing committee I completely agree should be held to account.

I'm not sure any court would pursue the GLISA Board when nobody on that board was involved with the day to day operations, nobody on that board was involved with entering supplier agreements for the event, were not involved with distributing funds that came in from government sources, sponsors and registration fees. They clearly had no financial control, so I'm not sure how they can be legally held liable.

It absolutely can be argued that the executive of GLISA SHOULD have known what was happening financially in Montreal, but just like everybody in Montreal who ended up being shocked at the financial mess - from the Mayor on down - I think the GLISA board was equally shocked. We (as I'll include myself in that group) - took people like Louise Roy at their word when at various functions in the year leading up to Montreal - right through the Games themselves - the claims were being made of financial solvency. In fact I'll repeat here a conversation I had with a friend who works for a UK based travel company while in Montreal. This was on the Wednesday half way through the Outgames and he had been at a dinner the night before with a number of Montreal officials. He told me that he was told by one of senior members of the Montreal organizing committee that there would be over a $300,000 surplus. The GLISA board and everybody else was being fed the exact same numbers at the same time.

The oversight lessons that I'm sure the GLISA Board are taking to heart from the Montreal debacle are exactly the same lessons the FGG Board learned from their Sydney and Amsterdam experiences. Those lessons the FGG learned resulted in them not signing with Montreal for the reasons Roberto layed out in his post from a few days ago. In retrospect that was obviously the right decison in view of what happened in the end to Montreal. But even Roberto mentioned for a long time he was one of Montreal's biggest supporters and it took him a long time to come to the conclusions he did.

Now my assumption is that GLISA has now learned the same lesson - the hard way - and if they are to successfully grow their Outgames brand, they will obviously have to ensure Copenhagen has learned those same lessons. That is a huge challenge though in view of the Montreal debacle - and has somebody who is now no longer involved - having resigned from Team Toronto - I'll sit back and watch as an interested spectator from the sidelines.

What you are saying, Pat, is that the GLISA Board was either in cahoots on something likely fraudulent, or amazingly and incredibly inept in their "oversight." This is similar to the way people have described the M2006 leadership - claiming a $200K surplus when the loss was $5.3 million means you're either really stupid or you're a liar. Not a lot of middle ground with those 2 widely disparate figures.

It is my belief that it is completely impossible for the leadership of either organization to have had absolutely no knowledge of the pending financial disaster. Remember that reports have indicated that Louise Roy asked for a $1.4 million loan from Quebec for cash flow. This suggests that they were sophisticated enough in their financial analysis to be able to project the amount of cash they'd need to operate through the week. From our experience, this kind of conclusion takes a good amount of work done by people in finance - the same people who you'd think would warn about revenue streams. The alternative explanation is that they called up the bank and asked "how much is in our account" and then just grabbed a figure out of their ass to tell Quebec. I suppose that's possible, but I can't imagine that folks were really that inept.

I suppose it is also possible that they thought government entities would bail them out to the tune of millions more - that the pressure of the $200K surplus announcement would bring government partners forward to ensure that it wasn't ever reported as a lie. But they had to know that the bailout would be required to avoid the huge loss. Remember also that Catherine Meade (GLISA Co-President) made some comments afterward (the interview where she blames the Quebec government for just not writing them a check) and suggests that she knew the bailout would be needed. We're not talking about a few hundred thousand here but $5.3 million.

No, I think the signs are all there that they knew things were bad off. But as we've noted here before, the "fake it and you'll make it" attitude never allowed them to be honest to their stakeholders and the disaster to all of them was that the news would leak before the event took place. Can you imagine what would have happened if around July 1 the news had reported "we will likely have just over 8,000 participants and we are projecting a loss of several million dollars?" Their reported agreement with the Quebec government to suppress the news lasted until October which is pretty good considering the risks to the government staff for being part of a coverup. I'm guessing the government avoided the "coverup" charge by finally coming clean themselves. They could legitimately claim the need to wait to October to really figure out what happened but not much later than that. Still, the language from the co-president in November about the "agreement to keep it away from the press" could be pretty damning in a court case.

If they had made the news public in June or July then, of course, their vendors would have required pre-payment or not provided services at all. And that's the crux of potential legal action, I suppose - knowing you can't pay, saying you can pay, and then not paying. We'll see what happens.

Oui, Travelpat, but there are two big differences between your case and mine.

The first is that you DID have, unlike me, the luxury of plenty of individuals issued from the LGBT sports community (and in fact an entire community-based organization, the FGG) who, without vested interest, were telling you that the M2006’ gang was lying (about the real problems with the negotiations, about the FGG, about their own participation figures, and so on). And what did you do? You still preferred to believe instead the words of the various Tom Czerniecki, Jean-Yves Duthel, and all such people who had never participated in a Gay Games, who had never been members of an LGBT sport team, who had no experience nor history with LGBT sports and who were paid to tell you the things they were saying.

The second is that, once I realized the true nature of this group, I ceased supporting them and all their endeavors. You, instead, even after acknowledging the deceitful conduct of M2006, still continue to support their two most wicked plans: the creation of GLISA and the holding of a second OutGames. These two projects were key in the M2006 strategy to gain a resemblance of legitimacy and to give the impression that their event was not a one-shot. Most importantly, they were key in their strategy to divide-and-conquer, to wipe out the FGG and the Gay Games and to remain the only quadrennial event on the market. The last part of the plan has failed, but I have explained in other posts why pursuing the existence of a second organization and a competitive event is terrible for the entire LGBT sports movement and may lead to its end, and yet, you support it. I think you should be ashamed for that.

One Down?

GLISA is reporting that Thomas Dolan has stepped down at GLISA co-president, replaced by a dutchman from Rotterdam.

Thomas was very instrumental in many of the early communique's out of the budding GLISA group that presented the false image that GLISA was independent of M2006 and would conduct oversight of M2006. Obviously neither were the case but his work allowed many who chose to turn a blind eye to reality to think of him as an "independent source." Ken can wax on for hours about this guy since he's from Vancouver and also probably is partly responsible for Team Vancouver's current problems because of the disinformation he helped to spread. When they write the story about this whole chapter in LGBT sport, his is a name that will not be referenced positively for sure.

Does this change represent an evolution in GLISA - an understanding that Thomas contributed to the problem or a cleaning house? Nope. The press release quotes him saying: "I will take on the communications role for GLISA..." Oh goodie.

Kevin,

You make me laugh. I could wax on for hours about Thomas Dolan and his antics is a total understatement. The things I could tell you.

So far I have simply wanted to see truth and dilligence win out over lies and laziness. Perhaps I am foolish but I think a lot of people go for believeing the guy with the best flash and dash and spend absolutely no time on determining waht is behind the mirrors.

I will say that he is not the only one in that organization that will never do their homework. It is a good day when he is no longer able to misrepresent things in the name of "marketing"

Ken

Hi Roberto:
I'm going to disagree with you on your last point - 'a competitive event is terrible for the entire LGBT sports movement and may lead to its end, and yet, you support it. I think you should be ashamed for that.'

I can state with a great deal of confidence that the desire for more events along the lines of an Outgames or Gay Games - has a great deal of support of GLBT athletes in much of Canada based on emails I have received and conversations I have had with dozens of Toronto area athletes, others from various organizations that joined GLISA and even through exchanges I have had with people we booked travel for to either Chicago, Montreal or both. That sentiment was certainly prevalent in Toronto in the lead up to last year's events based on the feedback we always received at any Team Toronto meaning. I still firmly believe that were there to be an event every two years - even if operated by different bodies - that both could be very successful were those two organizing bodies to co-operate with one another and support each others efforts.

It was unbelievable the number of times that somebody either at a Team Toronto meeting or at one of the uniform fitting sessions - which were held in my office - would remark they were so excited about Montreal or Chicago because they had not been able to go to Sydney, or could not go to both Sydney and Amsterdam - so their trip to either the Gay Games in Chicago or the Outgames in Montreal was going to be their first event of that type in either 8 or 12 years! And many of the 30+ sports at the Gay Games and Outgames are not well served by multiple weekend tournaments, so I think we are shortchanging members of our community who participate in those sports in particular if we limited their potential involvement to one event every four years. That in reality would be limiting many to just one event every 8 or 12 years if for time of year or economic hardship reasons people could not make the one event.

Simply put - if the Gay Games and Outgames were two years apart - and if both made unofficial arrangements not to be in the same part of the world from one games to the next I see no reason why they could not be successful. Of course we still have a problem with 2009 and 2010 because they are only one year apart and a few hundred miles apart again. Better than two weeks apart - but still a problem. Come 2012 - 2019, if the Gay Games and Out Games were two years apart and one event was lets say in South America and the other two years later in North America, then the next two years later in Europe then the other two years after that somewhderre in Asia, I just find it very difficult to believe that we could not make that work - and work very successfully. I think that plan ultimately has the potential to dramatically increase overall numbers participating and also making those numbers more geographically diverse in terms of where people come from. And if various stakeholders all acted co-operatively instead of in the adverserial fashion that we have all been a part of over the last few years, I still think there would be ways to make this work and still support other regional events in off years. For example in the years in between have Eurogames, so you would be having a Eurogames every two years.

I'm sorry - but I see no reason to be ashamed of having that opinion - when it is one shared by so many others actively involved in GLBT sport - at least in this part of the world. Disagree with me fine - and explain your reasons for doing so. And I can appreciate people will look at things and reach a different conclusion. I've got no problem with that. But I get my back up when somebody tells me I should be ashamed of my view - especially when it is one that is so widely held and was the UNANIMOUS position of the former Team Toronto board when we chose to join GLISA and support both events both in 2006 and moving forward in 2009 and 2010.
Pat

Pat,

I think you defend your point fairly well when seen through the eyes of a person that is using Canadian needs and expressed wishes as the basis for having an event.

It is simply not sound in business principles to put on an event simply because a small number of people say that they will support the event and buy tickets for it when it happens. Research shows that the percentage of those folks that actually go to the events that they talked about is not significant enough to be able to consider it money in the bank.

It is also a small scale concept you would be talking about but you seem to want to extrapolate this to a large scale world wide event. That simply doesn't work on paper or at the bank.

I would also challenge you to ask those people in return, how many of them have taken the lead in developing a new event?

Ken

Hi Ken:
Let me expand a bit just looking at previous participation levels from different parts of the world at previous Gay Games and Outgames to help support my view.

In Amsterdam there were something like 7,000+ Europeans that took part in the Gay Games in 1998. Since then the growth of GLBT sports everywhere has been huge, especially as of late in some former Eastern Bloc countries, yet the numbers of Europeans who took part in Gay Games in 2002 in Sydney or in 2006 in Chicago and Montreal combined were significantly lower than those numbers from Amsterdam eight years earlier. Conversely North American numbers which I think were up in the 10,000 range for New York in 1994 dropped to somewhere in the 6,000 - 8,000 range for both Amsterdam in 1998 and Sydney in 2002 but then jumped way up to over 13,000+ for Chicago and Montreal combined in 2006.

I suspect the major explanation for those variations in numbers are travel costs. And remember I'm only using North American and European numbers here - and generally people from those parts of the world are much better off than many other parts of the world and hence should be much more likely to be able to absorb the increased travel costs to get to events off their respective continents. Yet even for people from those areas there were significant changes in participation levels depending upon the location of the event. For those people in the less well-off areas even a marginal cost increase for getting to the games would be a complete deal breaker and have even a bigger impact.

So by pushing for a timetable that would limit the GLBT international sport community to just one major event every four years, where it will be routine to not see the event on your own continent for 12 or even 16 years, then I really feel that you are severely and in my opinion unduly limiting the opportunities for many thousands of people to participate.

So yes unfortunately being just one year apart and even closer than Montreal and Chicago geographically, with Copenhagen and Cologne being just 400 miles from each other compared to the 750 mile spread between Montreal and Chicago, the next Outgames and Gay Games could potentially be butting heads again as they may be tripping over one another promoting to the same people.

Although maybe the attitude of a gentleman from Cologne who stopped by my office between the Chicago and Montreal events back in July will prevail. When he asked if I would be in Cologne in 2010 - I told him that I hoped so, and that I hoped to be in Copenhagen too in 2009. His response - 'Well if you do make it to Copenhagen we will be there to convince you to come to Cologne in 2010.' The postive message I took from him being that the Cologne organizers were going to use the event in Copenhagen as the perfect opportunity to market their event for the following year. As others have pointed out that may be a tough sell to get people in back to back years to come to generally the same geographic area, but if the events moving forward were two years apart and geographically diverse and allowed cross-promotion and co-operation between the two events as apparently the gentleman from Cologne was hoping to have in Copenhagen, why would that not be successful?

Pat,

I cannot tell you that they would be successful or not as you would have to define success before I could answer the question.

There are some people that would tell you that Montreal was a success because they were able to accomplish a set of tasks. I would suggest that they were unsuccessful because they did not achieve the minimum standard required to be considered successful. I have training in Sport Administration and heaps of experience so my standards speak to sustainability of the event, not merely holding the event itself.

I think your numbers are not representative of real actions. People regularly tell me they will do things and when push comes to shove, they do not follow through. That may explain what you see as a disparity.

I would see the opportunity to travel to another country with 4 years planning to be one of the most exciting things about Gay Games as opposed to it being something you have referred to as unduly limiting.

I don't find anything exceptional about the guy from Cologne going to Copenhagen. I would find it bizarre if they didn't show up there.

I think you are still living with the misconception that the "schism" thing was about personalities when it was really about being responsible, honest and transparent. The gang in Montreal found that it was easier to explain the disagreement if they made it an us versus them concept and pushed people to choose sides. That was never the case from the perspective of a lot of people that were aware what had happenned and did not have axes to grind.

Even now you see Kevin Boyer working towards other events being successful. My old Co-Chair of Team Vancouver - Thomas Dolan has moved into the world of charging people money for his advice as a consultant - whereas Kevin gives it for free to make sure that these events are successful. That alone is proof in the pudding for me.

Ken

Ken - when you state 'I think your numbers are not representative of real actions', I am at a complete loss.

My numbers ARE representative of real action - because my numbers are exactly that - WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. They reflect the increased numbers you got from a continent when the event was on their continent, and the significant drop when the event was off their continent. There is no reason to suspect that pattern will change moving forward.

For many people - even here - in relatively rich Toronto - intercontinental travel for a sport tournament is just a non-starter. It is too expensive. That is why Toronto had something like 400+ people in New York back in 1994 - it was cheap to get to. We dropped way down for both Amsterdam and even lower for Sydney - because they were expensive to get to. Then our participation level increased hugely to well over 500 between both Montreal and Chicago - because they were easy and inexpensvie to get to. This isn't rocket science! 2009 or 2010 in Europe - I suspect you'll be back in the below 200 range for Toronto, but if one of those events comes back to North America for 2012, 2013 or 2014 look for a spike in terms of the numbers of Torontonians participating. And you will see a similar pattern for every other community on the entire planet.

Truthfully at this point I really don't care all that much about who may be running these events 10 years from now - whether it be the FGG, GLISA or both. I just would like to see a well delivered, fiscally sound 25-30 sport event every two years - on differing continents so that many, many thousands more people would have the opportunity to participate within each four year cycle than would happen if we limit this to one event every four years. And I think in with a co-operative spirit we could do that especially knowing that the number of GLBT people participating in organized GLBT sports is growing worldwide by thousands each and every year!

For many reasons stated in previous posts about the problems in organizing and developing these enormous events, holding them every two years is just not practical. And if my own team is any model, it takes us four years to raise the money from sponsors and to generate the team enthusiasm to go in a group. Every two years would practically kill us and would certainly kill off our grants and gifts.

Why not a winter Games, like they do with the Olympics?

Hi Claire:
I can appreciate what you are saying - but my point is - if it does take 3-4 years for your team to gear up the interest and raise enough money to go from your sponsors - then plan that way and go to the event in four years - and more power to you. I would not expect that if there were events every two years that it would be ALL the same people at every event. In fact having a really different cross section of people from one event to the next because of geographic diversity holds much greater appeal to me! So if only 30% of the people who are at an event in Europe in 2010 are at an event in North America in 2012, and then only 30% of those 2012 participants are at an event in South Africa in 2014 - I think that would be great! (And no GLISA supporters I am not giving up on the odd year schedule you favour, but I know if I were to use those years in my example the FGG supporters on this board would be jumping all over me.) :-)

And getting back to your team Claire - would it take your team 4 years to fundraise if the event was in your own backyard - wherever that may be, which would happen much more often were there an event every two years.

I know that there is a ton of work and planning that has to go into one of these events - and I understand that. But the long term planning and organizing can be happening for a 2012 event without interfering with the final preparations for a 2010 event. The longer term sponsors - such as tourism organizations and governments would be involved from the get go, but then most corporate sponsors don't come on board until the last year because they want the exposure at the actual event. And if 2012 is on a different continent from the 2010 event - they are not going to be stepping on any toes at all in terms of who they are approaching for sponsorship. For example I doubt Cologne is going to be contacting ESPN in the USA to sponsor fireworks.

And besides for many others, fundraising and advance planning is not an issue and they can easily plan for an event even six months down the road. In fact I don't know about what it may be like wherever you live - but here in Toronto it has always been a great challenge to even get people involved to help out with any fundraising or commit to joining a team roster until within months of the event. I know for Montreal - I did not have a volleyball team to play on until January 2006 - less than 7 months before the games and many of the other volleyball teams from Toronto did not have firm rosters until March or April just two or three months before the event!

And correct me if I'm wrong - but were there not two very strong bids from Paris and Johannesburg who I assume can step up to the plate again to bid for an event in 2012 or 2014. Likewise we had preliminary noises from Manchester and Sao Paulo indicating interest in future Outgames. Plus six different cities had representatives sniffing about in Montreal and I thought I read somewhere on one of these posts that a number of other cities had expressed preliminary interest to the FGG. And were these organizations working co-operatively I presume people like the Mayor of Berlin would be again backing an event for his city instead of withdrawing support because he did not want to throw himself into the middle of a gay civil war!

I appreciate your thoughts Claire and wish your team good luck with whatever event they choose to go to next. But I still think an event every two years can work and would be beneficial to the growth of GLBT sport.

There are many reasons why having the Gay Games every two years is the real non-starter. The workload involved in planning and executing the event is huge. To be cost-effective it must be done largely by volunteers. This lengthens the planning time. The "buzz" needs to be built over time - longer than 2 years. Sponsorship development takes longer than 2 years. By definintion, earnest and significant planning for a 2008 Gay Games would have started in 2005, maybe earlier, at the exact time when the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago were really hitting our stride in marketing, sponsorship promotion, media.

Why not just have 2 cities doing this simultaneously but at different stages? Two events in the preparation stages would confuse the marketplace - attendees, sponsors and media. The first one would be competing for attention, volunteers, and sponsors from the 2nd one as it got underway. The first in the cycle would need to insist that the 2nd one not start looking for sponsors until the first one was over - shortening the sponsorship cycle even more. There is the potential for some positive things from this scenario but I believe they would be far outweighed by the negatives.

The result would also be lower attendance for both of them. The urgency for Torontorians to go to the Gay Games in Cologne will be lessened if they go to Copenhagen, and if they knew a 2012 Gay Games was taking place in, say, Dalllas - that would lessen the urgency even more. So - a 2012 Gay Games in North America would significantly reduce the number of people who would go to Europe for 2010. Likely, EGLSF would go ahead and host a EuroGames in 2012. So urgency for Europeans to go to North America in 2012 would suffer a double whammy.

And reduced attendance, and less "specialness" would reduce sponsors further, reduce media attention (think "glut") - potentially a deadly blow for the entire movement.

Having two events with diffferent names, different aligned supporters, even every two years doesn't reduce the impact here. In some ways, it increases the negative impact because the two events won't be cooperating. No sharing of sponsorship relationships, attendee lists, or cross marketing. Instead, they'd be competing with each other. While this has some benefits in honing focus, many people get polarized and they "choose" one or the other. Leaders get distracted by news out of the other camp. In general, the negatives are all enhanced with not a lot of positive outcomes.

The Gay Games would have likely not survived a "Montreal" experience in Chicago. Just one of these "every two years" Gay Games having a similar disaster or being cancelled would be catastrophic. And remember that while Chicago is arguably the most successful Gay Games ever (defined from the business side, not the pretty hockey puck side), we still struggled very hard to get to break even - something that will eventually happen but not quite there yet.

There are other ways to accomplish the fairly simple goal of maximizing participation. I've written a few posts about that topic.

And, obviously, it DOES matter who is running the events. Honesty, community involvement, fiscal responsibility, international world-view - these are pre-requisites for the organizers of a world-wide event like the Gay Games. When people say "it doesn't matter who is running these events" you get GLISA.

Hey Kevin - I'm from Canada - we like pretty hockey pucks! ;-)
Actually speaking of hockey pucks I'm goint to have to make this post very brief as I'm heading out the door in 5 minutes for the appearance of Sydney Crosby and the Penguins to play the Leafs down at the ACC tonight. For those outside of Canda this game is HUGE. Scalpers getting over $1000.00 a ticket for Crosby's appearance here. But back to this discussion. Kevin I can follow and understand every argument you put forward. But to me the overarching main reason why I think an event every two years can work is the huge growth of GLBT sport.

Here in Toronto alone in the last 5 years we have seen women's hockey grow by something like 125 players and they now have a huge waiting list. Men's hockey has tripled in size, volleyball has almost doubled, badminton has gone from zero to almost 200 players, soccer from zero to over 100 and growing rapidly. I think most of us now realize that an event would have incredible difficulty accommodating much more than 18,000 athletes - if not less. I mean how many tennis players can you have and still finish a tournament within a week, likewise for volleyball, swimming, wrestling etc etc.

So I see a 'successful' event being one with somewhere in the 12,000 - 18,000 range. And with GLBT sport having grown by over 1000 participants in Toronto alone in the last few years, with many of those undoubtedly at some point wanting to go to at least one Gay or Outgames, I just can't see how one event every four years will be able to do it. At least not if the rest of the world is seeing growth similar to what we are experiencing here in Toronto. I just think that potentially four or eight years from now - if limited to one event every four years - we would be faced with many sports registrations being cut off because the sports are full, resulting in locking out thousands of potential attendees.

I firmly believe that. Remember between Chicago and Montreal we had over 20,000 participants! And that was with many people staying away because they were not impressed with either side in the 'schism'. Could one event really adequately handle that many?

Pat: You don't really respond to the issues I identified above. Of course there are tens of thousands of LGBT athletes in the world. But this is a simplistic analysis of what is required for success. I won't repeat all of my comments about about sponsors, planning time, and visibility, but even if a Gay Games every two years were to draw 10K to 12K participants every two years this doesn't address all of the other issues essential to success. But to your one topic - I think drawing conclusions from 2006 about a future 2-year cycle belies both the impat the 2-year cycle would have on participant interest and also neglects the possibility that 2006 was unique.

1. The perceived value of a Gay Games to prospective participants would be mitigated by a 2-year cycle. The sense of anticipation and excitement would be reduced by the shortened time frame. The notion of a "global" event is lost as the events will become defined as continental or hemispheric (indeed, the whole point of the 2-year cycle is to allow for more participation on-continent). The comparison to the Olympics - a very useful, if not altogether accurate marketing tool - will be reduced for an event that is every two years AND designed to be on different continents (see "continental or hemispheric" definition above). Marketing by one during the cycle of the other will confuse the market place - and would prompt the "late deciders" that you've talked about to often conclude "well, I can just go to the next one in 2 years."

2. 2006 could prove to be an aberration in the overall participant totals with the 20,000 (11,750 + 8,500) or so totals not reachable in upcoming years. If you trust the overall Montreal budget number (sorry - I don't believe anything from there anymore), they had a $14 million cash budget. Ours was $8.5 million cash, $13 million in-kind - with a total of $7.7 of that cash/inkind going to marketing. Presume they spent $5 million on marketing and PR that's $12.7 million spent promoting the two events. Those figures won't be replicated between Copenhagen and Cologne.

Then there are the other related issues. In Europe, would EGLSF only do the EuroGames every two years? No. They've already said that after 2009/2010, they will likely run the EuroGames in competition to either the OutGames or the Gay Games (maybe both!). During a European Gay Games, they'd probably go dark - but not during a North American Gay Games, impacting numbers of the North American version.

None of the participant numbers matter if the business model doesn't work. Remember - this past year you had maximum visibility and promotion and you still had one event with only 8,500 participants and a disastrous financial results. Give them another 3,500 participants and the financial loss would still have been staggering. The other issues I identified - sponsorships, visibility and "buzz" buildup, volunteer fatigue, planning time - entail significant risk for competing events, even if they are 1 or 2 years apart.

And, of course, if all of this is just a thinly veiled argument to suggest that the OutGames should just go ahead with a cycle that is two years different from the Gay Games, despite the financial failure of the "new model" OutGames I, then all of the ill-will and polarization is retained.

The athletes don't want two competing Games. The "more is better" rationalization might have been comforting in Toronto as Canadian athletes felt the need to support their countrymen while also realizing in their hearts that the Montreal event was a usurper undertaken for profit. But this just isn't a commonly held belief elsewhere as we will all see if Copenhagen Tourism doesn't come to their senses and cancel their event. Montreal has already successfully tarnished the Gay Games name in many parts of the world through their viciously negative marketing campaign. The continuation of the OutGames/Gay Games conflict will ultimately tarnish both and who knows what kind of an impact that could have on participation, credibility, sponsorships.

Expanding access by people to the Gay Games experience is important. There are a variety of ways that can be accomplished. Doing so in a way that risks the very movement is not acceptible.

Pat--

You miss part of my point as well. I didn't mean that my team couldn't attend any event every two years although that is clearly true. What I meant was that my team and our sponsors cannot be counted toward the possible numbers for the alternate event even though we are active participants every four years. I suspect that there are numerous city teams and private clubs that are similar to my situation. If I hypothesize that 30% of participants at Gay Games are in a similar position then I have to reduce the projected count of possible participants by 30% as well. And as Kevin has made abundantly clear, if sponsors get turned off by the competition for monies which I agree would be a huge problem for my group as well as many others, then even fewer participants can be projected.

These issues are on top of the difficulties to actually stage these events. Even when GLISA's event is a year (or two) separate from the Gay Games, the same sponsors and volunteers are needed to facilitate the event. Finding officials and referees and timers from a limited pool of qualified people is difficult enough without looking for twice as often and that is especially true out side of North America.

It is time to drop the rancor and get behind a quadrennial event that represents the glbt athletes. I make no secret that I think that event is the Gay Games not the deeply flawed GLISA event.

Hi Claire - thanks for clarifying your point. I don't mean for my post to be considered 'rancorous', I just think a 2 year cycle could work. Team Toronto basically ceases to exist for a couple of years after a Gay Games and it is ALWAYS tough to get it going again. That problem would not be there if almost immediately planning for another event. But I'll leave it at that for now. I don't want to get into an argument with anybody over this. I appreciate your input and Kevin's analysis. I guess we'll all see how this will unfold.

Pat,

Perhaps the folks at Team Toronto should do some strategic planning in regards to their operations if they are tied so tightly to the quadrenniel events.

At Team Vancouver we had been working towards providing value for the entire 4 years with Team Vancouver focussed inwards for approximately 2.5 years and outwardly for the remaining 1.5 years as everyone prepared to go to the Gay Games. In this way, there was a reason to exist for the full cycle.

This fell apart when it was determined that the only priority was to go to the Gay Games. We lost relationships with folks in the community that had been worked on for many years. There was even a point where we discussed ways of making it easier for people to be Members of Team Vancouver and the deciding vote against opening up the Membership in order to support an ongoing active Membership was - you guessed it - Thomas Dolan.

By focussing totally on the large events, the society found itself buried in the question of relevance on a regular basis. This is not unique to Team Toronto or Team Vancouver.

What I am suggesting is that both organizations need to redefine their relevance and determine tasks that they can achieve in the years between events.

The answer to the woes of Team Toronto is not that there need to be more events to plan for, the woes are caused by their definition of self as overly iattached to those events. They do not achieve an individuality of organization that is neccesary to be stand alone.

I would strongly disagree with your concern that there should be more events in order to make Team Toronto mopre relevant.

The Board Members and community in Toronto can make Team Toronto more relevant. You have stated that you have recently stepped down from the Board of Team Toronto. Unfortunately that is very consistent with an organization that has a big project once every few years. Filling in with other projects in the intervening years would do wonders. Surely there are some local tasks that could be done and are of some interest to you in the next 2 years? Why don't you go back to the Board and help them to revitalize themselves?

Ken

just putting in my 2 cents worth from a part of the world you folks tend to forget and that is the southern hemisphere.

i agree totally with both claire and kevin..both spot on and it goes double for us down under. it is hard enough getting people to one games every four years, yet alone every two.

whist we have seen growth in our sports scence, you could pretty much say that only about 5% of those would actually be bothered or could afford to come to a four yearly event.

for those that do make the commitment, the build up is essential to making this a special event as well as the time required to do the enourmous amount of background work to organise and get sponsors etc that needs to take place and this is something that those who have not experienced, will maybe not fully appreciate

have heard that the 'GLISA' (don't think they acutally use that word anymore!) asia pacific games is going ahead in melbourne next year, piggybacking on the midsumma festival which is very small in relative terms.


i tried to get the austalian gaymes happening after a hiatus of several years when i was a member of TS, but no one was listening. history may repeat itself.

i think there is a case for having regional games as long as there are enough volunteers and officials on the ground...this is where the work is a gradual thing as it appears to me its always the same small group of people doing the work.

kate (sydney)

Hey Ken - Team Toronto has made various attempts to make ourselves something other than just the umbrella team for Gay Games by creating the Toronto Sports Alliance (TSA) over the last 5-6 years. The idea being the 'Team Toronto' name was so closely associated with just the Gay Games that we needed to use a different name to be used to serve the GLBT sport organizations of Toronto on an ongoing basis.

We organized such things as Sports Fairs and had many other great ideas, but in spite of our best efforts none of those really bore all that much fruit at all in spite of a lot of effort by a handful of individuals. Ultimately people still looked at us to simply provide the functions related to organizing Toronto area athletes for the Gay Games - and now as of 2006 and 2009 - the Outgames. The in between Gay Games years have always only ever involved a handful of the most dedicated individuals. The community at large really still only looked to us in significant numbers in the last year or so when it was time to plan for attending an event like the Gay Games or Outgames.

So other than sending a rep to FGG meetings - for most GLBT athletes in Toronto - their impression would be that Team Toronto was basically dormant for 2+ years after a Gay Games. Sure they would see us at Pride at an information table or helping out at one of the Beer gardens, but realistically - not much else. That is why it was always an incredibly difficult process to get people involved and to actually show up at meetings in significant enough numbers, so that we would have enough resources to actually organize for significant fundraising, uniforms and events like Gay or Outgames information or registration nights. As much as some of the actual work leading up to the games was very time consuming, one of the most difficult tasks was actually trying to get people involved again after such a lengthy dormant period.

Can I provide some advice from a Team Sydney perspective. We had a very similar problem to Team Toronto in terms of relevance between the big events. We set up an Affiliations Task force to map out where Team Sydney people can compete.

Let me give you the list based on 2 months work:

2007 - Straits Games, Phuket Thailand
2008 - Melbourne Outgames 2008
2009 - World Masters Games, Sydney
2009 - Copenhagen World Outgames
2010 - Cologne Gay Games
2011/2012 - 2nd Asia Pacific Outgames - Location TBD

In adddition, we run a Sports Festival during Mardi Gras, have the Team Sydney Sports Village at Mardi Gras Fair Day and run a Sports Day Out in September. Our member clubs also have their own events which we fully support. In addition we do some serious fund raising and somehow manage to provide delegates for both GLISA and FGG.

As you can see, you don't need to search too hard to find lots of stuff to do and keep people interested for all years.

Thanks for that JBAL. Your list seems to support what I have been saying in terms of needing more events other than just a quadrennial Gay Games to plan for in order to keep the momentum going for organizations like Team Sydney and Team Toronto. I find it interesting to note that fully half your list of 6 events that Team Sydney is keeping busy planning for are GLISA affiliated events.

Pat,

I think the part you are missing is that the list for North Americans is the full length of one of these pages!

The folks in Sydney are so far away from the rest of the world that every trip is a big thing.

If Team Toronto wanted to take on some aspects of Team City status you would understand that GL Sports continues in full cycle regardless of the big events. There is a role for Team Toronto if you look harder and try to not focus on the obvious.

Ken

But Ken - you are missing my point and are clearly not aware of the hundreds of times Team Toronto tried to be more relevant but the individual leagues - all successful in their own right - do their own thing and don't really see the need for Team Toronto outside of the Big Event. The bigger GLBT sport leagues in Toronto handle arranging plans for single sport tournaments or events like the Westeren Cup in the past which included only 4 sports and showed NO INTEREST in working with Team Toronto on things like that. It is only for the big multisport event that people would look to us and even then that seems to be diminishing somewhat from participants in certain sports.

The women even formed their own group Women for Sydney and continued that on with Women for Montreal and I assume will as Women for Copenhagen. They still worked in cooperation with Team Toronto for things like uniforms but otherwise have run their own show for the last few years. And some of the larger sports like volleyball completely went their own way in 2006 with almost none of them joining Team toronto. In fact the volleyball league did their own t-shirts and carried in their own banner for the 70+ members who went to Montreal.

It was mostly people in specific sports whose organizers still support the city team concept and the many individual athletes not well served by an organized league or many tournaments - like the track athletes for example. They looked to Team Toronto for help in getting to the large multisport events in 2006. They are also the ones who have CLEARLY indicated support for Team Toronto's goals of growing GLBT sport by playing what role it could in providing more opportunites for them to participate. Joining GLISA and supporting the development of more multisport events fit naturally with that objective which is one of the main reasons Team Toronto joined GLISA in the first place and then supported it in decisions like creating regional events in the off years. I honestly do not recall ONE SINGLE Toronto voice objecting to those decisons, so I assume they still have great local support. Now the question is will anybody step into to do the work that was being done by people like Rob Lavery or Liz Devine - who like me have decided now was the time to step aside after 8 or more years of volunteer service for Team Toronto, GLISA and/or the FGG.

GLISA-spawned events are not required in order for City Teams to maintain relevance between the Gay Games. While I agree that the City Teams often struggle between the quadrennials to maintain excitement, I think there are many different things that City Teams can do between Gay Games to maintain relevance, members, revenue and leadership:

COMMUNICATION/INFORMATION
1. Regularly (weekly) maintain an informative website that collects news and information from all local sports organizations. Ensure that this website includes all local or regional sports organizations, accurate contact information, website links, and other items that might be useful to potential local partners.
2. Regularly (monthly?) communicate to athletes, artists, supporters and leaders about activites, news, and services.
3. Communicate regularly with local media regarding activities and ideas. Establish a list with bios and photos of local athletes and artists who plan to attend the next Gay Games and make the list available to local media as well as the host city organization. Establish relationships with key mainstream reporters and send them information at least quarterly about activities, story ideas, and news.
4. Establish a regular liaison with the local host organization of the next Gay Games. Set aside online space and meeting time to ensure the flow of city tourism information to help establish appeal. Secure online and print materials (independently if the host organization is too swamped) about the host city and distribute regularly via email, at events, and to local media.

>> These will create a sense of continuity among the locals that you say is missing, while laying the groundwork for everything else I write below as well as items that JBAL of Team Sydney has written about.

FUNDING/SPONSORSHIPS/MEMBERSHIPS
5. Provide multi-year individual memberships that come with real benefits, including access to supplies and funds necessary to travel to the Gay Games.
6. Regularly (quarterly over all four years) host fundraisers for a travel fund; allocate 80% of the funds to traveling athletes based upon the number of hours of volunteer work done at the fundraisers, 20% on a "needs" basis.
7. Cultivate ongoing sponsors - corporate and small business - to help raise awareness and funds for operations and the next Gay Games. Establish a set of benefits that sponsors would find appealing; be creative and non-traditional as appropriate. Sell multi-year sponsorships and extend top benefits only to those willing to make significant cash or direct-expense-offset contributions. When establishing benefits, focus on those that surveys (IEG, 2006) show are most important to the sponsors; 1) creative brand loyalty, 2) create awareness/visibility, 3) change/reinforce positive image, 4) drive sales/retail.
8. Establish a list of services and products that you will need during the next Gay Games (travel, lodging, airport transfers, uniforms, pins, phone service, food & beverage, "welcome party" location, city-related promotional items, etc.). Establish a wish-list for potential donations and sponsors (cash or in-kind) over time.
9. Establish your own relationship with your local city and/or state/provincial government. Establish regular (annual?) face-to-face communication. Find out their goals relative to promotion of the city and work those goals into your planning (you'll find resources flow more easily if they know they'll be used for jointly held goals). However, resist the urge to be drawn to fully into the commercial tourism side until you have significant human resources and strength to stand on your own.

>> These elements not only raise funds for the organization, but by specifically tying them to direct expenses and to those people who actually contribute the work to raise the funds, you tie the entire financial picture back to workload, visibility, and volunteerism over time.

CREATE LOCAL VALUE
10. Establish a multi-sport event to gain volunteers, experience, credibility, and insight. Use the event for sponsor benefits. Perhaps start with an existing event and add 2 or 3 new sports that are not typically offered, may not have a local sports organization, and don't compete regionally with other events. Include a social and cultural elements as a draw for partners.
11. <Alternative> - package and/or re-package existing multi-sport events to provide a more rounded experience, supporting existing sports leagues with information, volunteers, visibility.
12. Nurture a new or struggling sport league or association that has appeal but doesn't have a "home" among existing sports leagues or multi-sport associations. Provide resources such access to a webpage or two with some technical support, online message board, or even some modest start-up funding until membership dues can pay you back. Cultivate these relationships for fundraisers, multi-sport tournaments, volunteers and sponsor benefits.

>> This establishes credibility with the local sports organizations without undermining their authority or threatening their "turf." You gain "chits" that can be used later when you go through your pre-Gay Games growth spurt.

LEADERSHIP
13. Ensure regular representation at national, regional and international governing bodies such as the FGG to ensure information flow and a voice. Don't "take your toys and go home" if the governing bodies don't vote your way; rather work to more effectively communicate your position and then accept the democratic decisions. Be as loyal to the governing body as you are to your local organizations. Always establish bridges, don't burn them.
14. Establish a network with other city teams to share ideas and resources. Try to bring resources to your local sports, culture and sponsor partners to help cement relationships.
15. Offer to lead local quarterly or semi-annual "roundtable" discussions with stakeholders including sports leaders, community organizations and government officials on how to improve local LGBT sports.


>> This maintains your unique position as the regional organization representing the interests of all athletes to the FGG and as a group whose role is to bring people together locally in the common cause.

This is a long list but most of these are eminently doable with an organization that starts with 5 to 8 strong volunteer leaders. The key is to ensure that these leaders include people with skills necessary to perform the tasks. Recruit leaders if necessary - perhaps even outside the organized sports community (that's how I got involved - I was elected chair of the Gay Games Chicago Board for my marketing and organizational development background before I had ever competed in a single local LGBT sports league.)

GLISA-spawned events aren't necessary to create the excuse to perform these tasks; and, indeed, having additional multiple events could result in burn-out or diversion of resources away from other important tasks. Time spent hand-wringing over the cost to participate in Calgary could be spent raising funds to participate in Cologne.

I'm not suggesting that this is easy. But it is worth it.

heh kevin..Team Sydney needs you..this is fantastic and i agree totally with you. all those glisa games mentioned would happen anyway, so why have a brand that is soooo on the nose attached to your event. what australia needs is to reestablish an australian games to get our own country energised.

if you look at the melbourne 'outgames' 08 you will see that glisa is using the same fluffy language and exaggerations..so history will repeat itself. The melbourne sports festival happens regardless. why would anyone who knows the history, want to have the same people who were involved in the financial disaster and who spread lies and deceit involved with your event? Leopards don't change their spots that quickly. i just hope some intelligence will prevail and the difficult questions will be asked before this association goes much further. i don't want to see australia be landed with the discredit that montreal now has to live with.

Having been around gay sports since 92, i have seen the cycle happen again and again. sudden burst of energy and then burnout of the dedicated few who's work should be acknowledged. When our local umbrella organisation truely represents GLBT then i think we can look further.

kate

Yes the list from TS does look glisa centric...who knows why

Pat,

For my response to your response to my response to you......just read Kevin's post.

If you are content to be a uniform production organization and lrave all of the other tasks to whoever else wants to do them, you risk irrelevance. If you actually take on the mantle of leadership and leave Sport delivery to the Leagues, you will find that there is more work to do than you could ever deal with.

Thanks Kevin. Your post should be circulated to every Board Member of every City Team in the world.

Kate - the last I remember of Midsumma, I thought they were facing bankruptcy but that was several years ago. Are they back in a good situation?

Ken

Oh, I forgot one thing.

I have an observation about the GLISA event thing.

GLISA has established a Mockingbird procedure for events. Just like the bird, they move in on an established event/nest, and proceed to take over by planting their stuff and then acting like it was always theirs in spite of previous history or success.

This is not a new concept at all if you don't have a presence in the world. The hard part is to establish yourself by building from the ground up. Even OutGames in Montreal did not have any input from Mockingbird GLISA.

Ken

Hey Ken - I agree Kevin has nicely and quite thoroughly described what steps could work for making a city team more relevant, and his essay would certainly be good reference material for anybody still involved with city team like organizations. At various times over my 8+ years with Team Toronto many of those very same ideas were at least discussed - and many attempts were made to implement some. But for a variety of reasons that I won't bore people with here, most (but not all) of the efforts to implement some of those ideas failed outright or just slowly disappeared. Often because of the lack of buy in from some of the strongest and largest individual leagues here in Toronto - who I think in some ways felt threatened by Team Toronto.

Also of note - some of what Kevin described is very similar to some of the discussions we had at the inaugural GLISA meeting. A large chunk of time was set aside specifically for discussions where various representatives of the many membership organizations present - could describe to others their organizations best practices and what did or did not work within their own particular organization. The idea being that all those present could take those ideas back to their board or membership to see if similar actions could benefit their own organizations. That sort of networking at meetings like that GLISA meeting could prove to be very valuable for city teams.

As for me - I've done my time - too much other stuff happening in my life right now - so good luck to whoever tries to take up the challenges facing Team Toronto.

hi Ken

not sure if midsumma was ever facing bankruptcy, but mardi grascertainly got close to folding about four years ago. however due to some very dedicated people, it has come back from the brink albeit in a much simplified form. It reached its zenith and just got too big...and now has settled into it rightful place.

i think midsumma follows basically the same format, but with a melbourne sensitivity rather than our sydney brashness!

kate

Another "Essay" from Kevin:

Having just spent 2.5 years working with the city teams, I think a key problem with the drop-off between Gay Games is a lack of "scope and place." By defining themselves often exclusively as the "umbrella for the Gay Games" they create a narrow view of themselves in their own minds and the minds of those around them. These City Teams become symbiotic parasites - they exist only because of the existence of the Gay Games and the lack of a local multi-sport organization that can represent everyone preparing for that event. The local sports leagues and the Gay Games need them but only as symbiots, and only as much as their value contributes to the "host." (Many, not all City Teams fall in this category.)

In many cities, the City Teams lose most of their value altogether because they don't represent very many athletes, they're not the best way to reach the majority of athletes, and they don't have the kind of resources required to really provide significant value back to the athletes or the Gay Games host city. We experienced this time and time again in this last cycle. But the shell still exists because the "City Team" is the vehicle for uniforms, information, etc. (supposedly but not for many people who just wear their own team uniforms), and because the "Olympic model" and Opening Ceremony Processional Protocols push people into a geographic mode right at the beginning of the Gay Games. But these shell City Teams exist for a year or two and then go away - shedding from the host to keep the metaphor - and then a new City Team reappears next time around. This is bad symbiotic behavior that yields some temporary benefits but frustrates people in the long term.

The problem with GLISA-spawned events is that they simply provide more "hosts" for the symbiotic behavior. If more events were useful for City Teams existence, then why don't the City Teams play a role in the Gay World Series or the Gay Super Bowl or the NAGVA Volleyball Championships or even small multi-sport events like the Western Cup?

For all of Pat's comments about how Toronto's tried almost everything, I saw very few City Teams that really merged together information, networking, creating local value, sponsorship and fundraising, and leadership as I have tried to describe. Some did it very well, within the narrow parameter of "we're getting ready for the Gay Games" but not beyond. The problem with the "we've tried many of these" is that they need to be put together as an overall strategy so that locally there is a sense that the City Team is greater than its symbiotic behavior. Accomplished, the local sports leaders that seem to block greater visibility and expansion by the City Team would become partners in the endeavor as they benefit also.

I do believe that it is tough to pull something together like this without those key 5 to 8 people committed to working on the related elements and without advisors and support internationally. I believe that the FGG (or GLISA, if the FGG cedes this ground to them) could focus on supporting this kind of organizational development. This is more than just a City Team Networking, though. This is change through OD. I think it needs to be supported by the FGG as a means to build capacity, scope, and access. Indeed, I've wondered if one possible future way for GLISA and the FGG to work together might be if GLISA drops the OutGames silliness and focuses on capacity building, OD, and support for international LGBT sports development while the FGG focuses on the delivery of the quadrennial. I think the FGG could take on the whole thing but their leaders might not agree with the broader mission. <<TransparentPat Alert: This is the part of my essay that he will likely glom onto for reply. Go for it!!>>

But ultimately it seems to me that the simplistic view that Pat ascribes to is winning the day in GLISA's case. "Give us more events so that we have something to work on between Gay Games," does not change the basic "scope and place" issues that bind the City Teams. Nor does it generate more money or volunteers needed for the work.

IF, as he says, these events are all part of a grand plan to broaden participation in LGBT sport, then why force the continental model? Why the focus on the brand - the mockingbird behavior that Ken so visually describes - instead of focusing more on sharing information and resources? How does co-opting an existing brand (the "Western Cup") for a year help the local organization after the OutGames has come and gone? Why not "sponsor" events, instead of rebranding them, by offering some of value to the hosts. Brand awareness is built, but without baggage or co-opting. Or is it really about generating cash from license fees?

If the City Teams haven't done all of the other work that I've talked about above, how will they be received by the local sports organizations when they say "oh, guess what, we now need your help to get people prepared for Local OutGames Version 2.02." Rolled eyes in many cases, I would guess.

The real value of the international LGBT sports movement is beyond just the Gay Games. The entire movement is strengthened if the City Teams broaden their own sense of scope and place and focus on the elements I identified above - building local scope and capacity for everyone. The same is the case with the international single-sport organizations. By doing so, the Gay Games will be bigger and better, local sports are enhanced, and more people are reached with the message that sports can change lives for the better.

Essay over.

Well Kevin - I have lost a little weight - but don't think I'm totally transparent - yet.

You are in some ways right - that Team Toronto may have tried various items suggested in your previous 'essay' but never really managed to develop a long term sustainable plan to successfully implement some of the things that the Team Toronto board indicated a desire to do. This was partly because we were looked at solely as 'those Gay Games people' - and if an individual ahtlete - or a league did not have much interest in the goings on of the FGG at the time - they perceived they had no reason to work with us. So yes - if Team Toronto is to make itself relevant in the future it will have to be able to show ongoing value to those it is trying to attract to work with it. And the last Team toronto board did feel that by having more events, that we would be a more significant organization within Toronto and at least then we would be overcoming what we identified as our biggest problem - that traditional 2-2.5 dormant period that was always so hard to come out from. That dormant period is also what really always killed any chance for many of those other things that Team Toronto has wanted to do for years from succeeding - at least as much as was hoped for. Athletes, the local gay media, the other leagues would only come to the table when it was time to work with us to plan for an event. We had many contacts with the media about other things we were doing - like the Sports Fairs - but for whatever reason - the only time we got coverage - or would get them to do profiles of athletes that we supplied to them, would be in the run-up to the Gay Games or Outgames.

So the thought process on the Team Toronto Board - not just my apparently transparent and simple thoughts - was that if there were some more events that we could play a role in getting Toronto area athletes to - other than just the once every four year Gay Games, then we no longer would have such a long down time. That we would always have a significant raison d'etre with the associated interest in us because we were always working on something that most would consider significant. And because of that it would be easier to attract and keep volunteers involved on an ongoing basis. They in turn, in addition to providing the services required to help with organizing for those other events, would be tapped into to help out with those other services and functions we always hoped Team toronto could provide. Such things as our website development - so that our website would be a good resource for all GLBT athletes of Toronto, or outreach. These were things that we always had at best marginal success with and a big reason for that was of what amounted to the 2 - 2.5 years of what many would consider our dormant period. The extra events - it was thought - would be the impetus to keep people involved which would then provide the manpower resources to do all those other things.

Yes I think an organization like GLISA or the FGG could help with making Team Toronto more relevant beyond just providing us more events to organize for - but at least as the situation now stands in Toronto - and I suspect in many other communities - I still think those extra events can play a significant role in working towards that. Looking beyond just providing extra events the improvement of member organizations is one of GLISA's stated goals. This from their website..

The First Pillar : Our Members
The first pillar is GLISA’s mandate to nurture and grow LGBT sport world- wide, year in and year out, through outreach, member services and the sharing of knowledge and best practices among member organizations.

I presume they consider that an important part of its mandate considering they list it as their first pillar.

The Second Pillar : Our Partners
The second pillar of GLISA is partnership with mainstream sport, human rights and cultural organizations that share our mission to make all places safe for LGBT athletes to play sport.

I can't see that being a real problem for anybody. But then of course much of their work with human rights and cultural organizations is attached at the hip to one of their sports events - so maybe I'm wrong in assuming that Pillar would have wide support.

The Fourth Pillar : Our Team
The fourth pillar of GLISA is the professionalization of the LGBT sport movement. GLISA is committed to legacy in the form of transfer of knowledge, innovation in the delivery of services, and professionalism in the implementation of marketing and sponsorship strategies.

That one sounds very similar to some of Kevin's suggestions.

I won't post their 3rd Pillar here .... you know the one about the delivery of games.... I think you can guess why.

And by the way speaking of Glisa and delivery of games, you may find it of interest to read my post on the North American Outgames board. As of February 16 Calgary - as I hoped they would - have made the Party Pac optional now so that people can register for each of the sports at rates comparable to other tournaments - below $80.00US per person.

I saw that post. Good for them. I hope it's not too late. By the way, as has been pointed out here, it is a misnomer to refer to this year's Western Cup as an example of "GLISA and delivery of games" since it is a pre-existing successful event that is, to use Ken's word, being "mockingbirded." GLISA has also distanced itself from the delivery of the Montreal OutGames when discussions of deficit come up. In fact, now 3 years since the founding meeting in Montreal (the one where the group said "no" to another quadrennial in competition to the Gay Games), they've not yet delivered a games, right? I still think they'd be better off doing things that we really need instead of focusing on creating a brand and "mockingbirding" it off on someone else.

Hey Kevin:
I'm hoping its not too late as well. Unfortunately for some it already is, as I know of a number of people here in Toronto who were at least in the preliminary stages of making plans on going to Calgary, who stopped making those plans once they saw the high registration fees. And now they have already made alternate plans for that weekend - my own volleyball team included. And as for the 'delivery of games' comment I guess that can be argued either way. Yes the Western Cup is a pre-existing event - but because of the GLISA affiliation they added sports that otherwise would not have been a part of the event this year. So six of one a half dozen of the other.

Of course for those who are going now - I'll throw on my travel agent hat here and say book your flights quickly - as the cheaper seats for travel around Easter Weekend are already in limited supply. I just did a quick check of current prices from Toronto and Westjet and Air canada are both showing seats at $344.00 + taxes for a total of $460.40 Canadian. It would cost you a little more Kevin - in case you were thinking of attending. ;-) It looks like current fares from Chicago are coming in at around $525.00US including all taxes.

Cheers,
Pat

Nice try TP, even if Kevin used my free travel passes...It's highly unlikely you can convince him to attend.

Pat - you are just plain crazy. Western Cup people being convinced to add sports, that THEY must deliver, does not make GLISA the "deliverer of games." It may, if Western Cup people find that the exaggerated impact of promises related to the brand lead them to lose money, make GLISA the "deliverer of a deficit." There is no six of one, half dozen of the other here.

The people who deliver games are the organizers - whether in Calgary, Chicago, Montreal, Copenhagen or Cologne. In fact, at this point, GLISA hasn't even yet facilitated the creation of a new event that someone else has to deliver. Montreal and Calgary pre-existed GLISA as does the Melbourne sports festival. The first opportunity will likely be in Copenhagen in 2009 ... and given that event was handed to Copenhagen Tourism by Montreal Tourism after the Berlin people backed out and before your GLISA meeting to decide even happened, I'm not even sure GLISA should get credit for that conception, much less the delivery.

Actually, GLISA might want to hold on to that factoid for future "what went wrong" press releases. Should Copenhagen get canceled or end up in a deficit, the GLISA people can legitimately say "because there was no actual bidder and this event was simply given by Montreal to Copenhagen, we never had a chance to throughly review bid documents and so we couldn't do our due diligence to ensure that the plans would be satisfactory. Thus, the cancellation/deficit is not our fault." Brilliant!

I'd love to go to Calgary sometime, but I'll wait until it's just a regular Western Cup.