Gino,

Could you be Gene Dermody from SF?

According to a wrestler I talked to from overseas who ended up attending both games, the Hillside Wrestling Camp in PA, held annually over the past 13 years, was scheduled this year after Chicago but to directly compete with the one day wrestling event in Montreal. The wrestler I talked to even felt unconfortable that he was going to have to "come out" as being someone who wanted to do both and so would be leaving the camp early.

There were 7 days between the closing of the Chicago event and the opening of the Montreal event. The camp was 5 days long. Clearly an accommodation in the schedule could have been reached that would have allowed people to do it all - make the camp shorter, move the dates, etc.

Is it any wonder why a small sport like wrestling can't "support a split" when it is actively adding fuel to the fire?

For me, this is the most important point - thanks for making it.

I know at least two rowers in my club who did not attend either event due to the politics. We had 10 people attend Montreal and myself in Chicago, so would have had a 20% larger presence if there had been one event.

Don

I am sorry but I know it will come across as my taking sides because I am Canadian - but seriously, now that all things are said and done, Outgames and Gaygames are on two completely different levels. Yes, Montreal had fewer people than anticipated - sadly. However, if the FGG had listen to Montreals original business model for the 2006 Gaygames, the 2006 Gaygames would had been the best EVER, and probably set a new standard for the games. However, FGG decided not to go with the Montreal model - and since Montreal had put so much work into being awarded the Gaygames for 2006, they were not about to walk away empty handed.

Please always remember that it was the FGG that awared the Gaygames to Montreal BASED on the model that has now been carried out as Outgames. It is my understanding that after the massive debts of Sydney, the FGG changed the rules for future events, even after having awarding Montreal the 2006 games. Please correct me if I am wrong.

GLISA has now set the bar as to how to run future gay sporting events. Maybe one day Gaygames will eclipse Outgames in terms of quality - but if that ever becomes the case, it was because GLISA and the Outgames gave REASON for the FGG to get their act together and put together a strong model for gay athletic competitions.

Without a doubt, from the competitions to the opening and closing ceremonies - the Outgames was astonishing. Yes, there were a few things that could had been changed - but hey, for a FIRST run at it, Montreal has showed the world that the GLISA model is workable, profitable, and most of all, professional.

Don - your post has nothing to do with my comment at all except as a jumping off point for comments about the way that rowing was handled and your general impression of the Gay Games. I wasn't at rowing but if medals were awarded to the wrong people, we'll address that and get them to the right people. I had many rowers tell me that they thought the event went well, especially given the distance and the politics.

But my comment was about numbers. For 2.5 years we all have borne the brunt of the Montreal Tourism marketing machine making claims that were outrageous - both about their own event and about ours. The fact that M2006 had less than planned is clearly not the issue being quarreled here. What is the issue is that they had less than they previously reported and continue to report figures and statistics that appear to be documentably wrong.

Keep in mind that long after we reached the 8,000 mark in registrations, people in the M2006 organization were still reporting in the Montreal media that we had 2,000 as a way to make it appear locally that the event was comparitively a slam dunk. How ironic that numbers in other posts now suggest that M2006 may have had as few as 8,000 sports participants with the Gay Games well above 11,000.

So perhaps a bit of this is "I told you so" on the part of Gay Games supporters. But there are bigger issues at play here beyond who was better organized, who was better funded and who had more Americans or Canadians. M2006 and its proxy, GLISA, claim to represent the future of the LGBT sports movement to the exclusion of the Gay Games. Frankly, I'd prefer to be aligned with a movement that with all of its quirks and potential missteps, including rowing medal missteps, is still community-based and values cooperation and integrity.

Thanks Chunky (feels funny calling someone else that because it's one of my partner's nicknames for me - though in my case it's him teasing me). Guys like you probably raise the bar. (pun)

I suspect individual and non-contact competitions are ahead of team sports in terms of the level of performance among gays for the same reasons that fewer are out in those sports.

Ah, this is more of the debate that needs to occur. Hopefully representatives from both FGG and GLISA are listening to this (and maybe even replying - but I don't think that's a good idea at this point).

For those who think two sets of games are a good thing probably have never been in the middle of organizing an international multi-sport event. They have no idea of the financial strain and personal drain it does to organizations, both at the local level and at the sport level. Why do you think the Olympics changed their quadrennial schedule for Summer and Winter? It took a lot out of the IOC and supporting organizations to support two in the same year.

No, two games is NOT good for G/L sports. Two games was born out of an LOC and a Federation that couldn't come to terms. Even though I admire Mr. Tewksbury, he brought us to this precipice and has left us with the situation without a good remedy. Anyone who has been involved at large event level knows this kind of competition does not bear well for advancing the movement.

As long as we remain at this stalemate and saturation of competition the G/L sports movement will remain at the mediocre level. The Games (either one) will never have a substantial spectator to participant ratio and thus always skirting the financial line between black and red. Think long term people. Think bigger dreams. Or maybe that's too much to think about at this time.

I really hope we get back to a single STRONG event that has solid corporate sponsorship and increased competition. How do you think a corporate sponsor is going to spend their money? Equally between two games or doubly for a single game? I know I'd want to maximize my advertising dollar.

There is so much to learn from this situation and so much to gain by leveraging those lessons to bring us back to a solid movement. Let's not waste this opportunity by dreaming of false hopes.

Hi Rbear,

I have to say that I strongly disagree with you on your perspective. To 'blame' Mark Tewksbery for this situation is entirely inappropriate. The FGG can be faulted for not being more flexible and following through with the original bidding package that Montreal originally presented. After Sydney, from my understanding, FGG changed the rules and that was NOT what Montreal originally agreed to, nor what Montreal said to the FGG they would supply.

I find it rather hard to lay fault with GLISA for doing a game, when they did exactly what they said they would do - and why Montreal was originally chosen as the Gaygames host city.

Please correct me if my knowledge of the historical events leading up to the formation of GLISA is wrong.

I do agree with you though that two games is not good - and if the FGG had followed through with the Montreal package, we would have had ONE incredibly successful gaygames in Montreal this year. Imagine how much MORE successful Montreal would had been if we didn't dilute the pool of athletes and the lack of Americans in Montreal! 10 000 in Montreal.... 12 000 in Chicago - that is 22 000 people! Montreal originally was aiming for that when they were awarded Gaygames.... and FGG said no and awarded the games to Chicago.

I really do think that the FGG could had avoided this situation altogether.

[ August 08, 2006, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Rastuurman ]

I still say - I think with a little cooperation we are more than big enough a community to support two events, preferably two years apart - but if GLISA and the FGG can't work that out, at least geographically separated if the Gay Games always follow the Outgames by just a year.

If you read some of my other posts you'll know my reasons why I feel that way, but two of the most important briefly are

- The likelihood of an event being geographically close to you more than once every 8, 12 or 16 years. That way you would have the ability to go to an event like this more than perhaps just once in that very long time span. That could be for financial or timing of the event reasons - eg. North American teachers could not get time off in November to go to Sydney. Many others could not afford the relatively expensive cost of getting there.

- The likelihood of your sport being offered more than just once every 8 or 12 years. (A number of sports are not offered each games). Take handball for example which was in Montreal but not Chicago or Flag Football where the reverse was true.

[ August 08, 2006, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]

Now here is news that should make BOTH camps happy! Congratulations to Chicago and Montréal for a great showing - especially given how strong the competition was between the two cities!!

Gay Sports Events Windfalls For Montreal, Chicago
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

August 8, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET


(Chicago) With only preliminary numbers in both Chicago and Montreal say they raked in tens of millions of dollars from the Gay Games and Outgames. Additionally both sets of competing sports events expect to show surpluses.

Montreal's Board of Trade said Tuesday that the First Outgames attracted about half a million people to the city, spending close to $90 million.

The Chamber of Commerce for the province had a higher estimate - saying that about $150 million was spend in Montreal during the weeklong games which wrapped up on Sunday.

The figures were similar in Chicago where the Gay Games were held a week earlier.

Figures are still being compiled by the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau but Jennifer Martinez, a spokesperson for Mayor Dailey told 365Gay.com on Tuesday that it appears the impact was between $50 and $80 million. The figures are based on a spending average of $348 on lodging, meals and transportation on each of the eight days.

The figures appear almost identical to predictions by Games officials.

Both sets of games also will finish in the black.

"Ticket sales to sports & cultural events exceeded our estimates by almost 50 percent" said Gay Games spokesperson Kevin Boyer.

Official numbers from the Gay Games and Outgames won't be available until fall.

Gay buying power in the US alone is estimated at over $600 billion.

i've been around the gay games movement for 12 years and attended four games. my reading is that if the split had not happened, there is no way montreal (or any other city) would have got the combined numbers of chicago and montreal. blind freddy can see that politics and all its murky game playing and the backing of canadian tourism with big bucks, got more people to montreal than might otherwise have been the case.

as far as i can see, the GLISA model is no different to the FGG model..so not sure how different it was...FGG has decided and quite rightly that after sydney, the the emphasis should go back to sports. So if the difference is bigger and better ceremonies and a conference well great..however the gay games are the gay games.

i concur with much of the debate here in terms of no room for two international events. we have reached a critical mass. it would be interesting to know who will be spending the big bucks to promote copenhagen.

i am all for an event that has intergrity and accountability and focuses on our community and not on the pressures of funding from people with a different agenda.

Just a couple of points of discussion in regards to some of the remarks within this thread.
>>Outgames are a quadrennial event.
Perahps not true. It appears to me that GLISA is modelling the Outgames after the very succesful Eurogames which has a large event every 3 years and smaller regional events in between.
The first regional Outgames will be the North American Outgames which will be held in Calgary in 2007.
GLISA also seems to be taking an approach of partnering with existing organizations and sporting events rather than competing for the same market. For example the Calgary North America Outgames will be held in conjunction with the 25th Anniversary of the gay hockey tournament called the Western Cup.
>>Why is the Copenhagen Outgames in 2009 and not 2010 or 2011?
I am speculating that perhaps the reason is that GLISA could partner with the Eurogames and have a combined event in 2009. That would make sense as a larger Eurogames is due in 2009 since the smaller regional events will be held in Antwerp in 2007 and Barcelona in 2008.
The World Outgames would certainly not be held in 2011 as someone else here predicted because there are already preliminary discussions as to having a North American Outgames in Vancouver in 2011 (after the 2010 Winter Olympics).

See prior post from me for my perspective on the situation. I take some of my judgement from Mark's own autobiography, "Inside Out." I'll have to say there is some "reading between the lines" but it's evident that the budget issue was the impasse. FGG took a conservative position and Montreal took an aggressive position. Neither would budge. I don't lay the whole thing on Mark but on both parties. If FGG had allowed some flexibility in budgetary control and Montreal had considered some adjustment of their figures we might not be where we're at.

But if we were in both parties shoes we might have made the same decisions. FGG was coming off big deficits from prior Gay Games and the Montreal pitch sounded like "same song, second verse." Why wouldn't they have been skeptical?

Montreal had pulled in one of the big guns in Mark Tewksbury with plenty of IOC experience and knowledge. They were following a proven IOC model (that eventually proved out successfully). Why wouldn't they feel constrained by an conservative FGG?

In other words, it appears the stubborn attitudes of two groups forced the issue. You are right in that if someone or both had given a little we could have had a GREAT set of Games. That's why I keep pressing the issue of compromise and collaboration.

Travelpat, you keep harping on localized competition. That's not an international multi-sport event and could never be sustained financially. Were you involved in Toronto's 2008 Olympic bid? Were you involved with Vancouver's 2010 Olympic bid? Dig into the details and maybe you'll see how flawed your argument is. Better yet, examine the Outgames budget and see how you could financially sustain that without government funding.

I brought up with someone involved with Gay Games in Chicago back when they first landed the Games that the only real way to propel the Games to financial stability would be to work with a broadcast network to air some of the events or maybe even nightly highlights. My recommendation was Bravo since it plays to the G/L crowd and is an affiliate of NBC, which has loads of experience with the Olympics. Of course that met with the same cynicism I think Montreal got on their budget. Attitudes have to change if we're ever going to move this forward and get to a world-class event.

Then again, we can continue the current model. I will be first in line to support a team going to one of the Games, but only one. The money I would have spent for another set of Games would be better spent with local or national political issues. You see, in business we try to cut redundancy when we can. It costs too much with no substantial benefit. I know, it's a business model but that's what the Games are all about.

Um,NOT!

Neither the Gay Games nor the Outgames are about the sort of elite competition that is going to land you major media coverage of the actual sports. The gay sports movement is about participation.

My guess is most of the major international gay and lesbian sports associations, such as the International Gay & Lesbian Football Association and the International Gay & Lesbian Aquatics Association, will continue to hold their own events annually. For example, the IGLFA has their 2007 Championship planned for 22-29 September in Buenos Aries, Argentina. Based on past experience, I can pretty much assure you that given the choice between the two, few teams will be in Calgary for the North American Outgames.

I can also assure you that the Gay Games will continue to serve as the pinnacle, quadrennial event for many of these associations, as these associations continue to have very strong ties to the Federation. In fact, many of them were founded after a Gay Game because many of the original Gay Games athletes within these sports valued the spirit of the Games and its place and potential in helping to grow their own membership around the world, no matter if there is some discussion around the current Board's leadership. I think this point is validated by the fact that most of the major gay sports associations (rowing is the evident exception) came out early in support of the Federation when GLISA announced they would move forward with Montreal. Cyd's posting on his experience tearing up in Montreal was quite telling for me as I had the same experience at the Closing Ceremonies listening to Cyndi Lauper sing "True Colors." While I was proud to be a gay athlete standing in Wrigley Field, what I kept thinking about was the historical moment of this event - God, if Tom Waddell could only be here to see this moment now.

What is unclear is if these organizations will embrace the Outgames in "off years", for example, 2009. IGLFA has opened up the bidding process for its 2008 tournament, but it does look like they have expressed a willingness to consider holding the 2009 Championship in concert with the Outgames. For me, as long as they do not overlap again, I would welcome an opportunity to celebrate gay and lesbian sport with athletes from around the world in multiple disciplines. The Gay Games will still be THE event I look forward to for reasons already mentioned, but the Outgames could be a valuable experience as well. As one poster mentioned, it is indeed a shame that the Outgames and the Gay Games will not be separated by a full two years. If there is one complaint about the Olympics that holds water for the Games (combined), it is the fact that much can happen in four years - perhaps some athletes in Chicago and Montreal would want to give it another go in 2008 but not in 2009/2010.

[ August 08, 2006, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: saxnhoy ]

Indeed. Did you notice the dead silence when Cyndi performed. It was quite an emotional moment.

[ August 08, 2006, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: CHIathlete ]

>>> While I was proud to be a gay athlete standing in Wrigley Field, what I kept thinking about was the historical moment of this event - God, if Tom Waddell could only be here to see this moment now.

It was not Tom Waddell's dream to see the Gay Gamees as only inclusive for Americans. Many of the rest of the world were not included, especially HIV+ men who were forced to sign a waiver in order to visit the American Gay Games.

The 2007 NA Outgames are similar to the small Eurogames in that they are only offering about eight sports, football isn't one of them, which is probably a good thing given that the games will be held in early April.

Sorry for the confusion on whether the North American Outgames were offering soccer -- soccer is offered at the Eurogames, so I just assumed that being a GLISA sponsored event, they would follow suit in Calgary. Guess not.

VYRTriguy, I in NO WAY stood at Wrigley Field proud of the fact that my country has such a repulsive law prohibiting HIV+ individuals from entering the United States. Indeed, one of the reasons Gay Games has not been held in the United States since New York in '94 has been the Federation's commitment to inclusion and a direct response to that discriminatory law. However, I applaud Mayor Daley for standing up to our Tyrant and having the waiver lifted for the Games. I was proud to stand there because he would have seen nearly 25,000 gay athletes and supporters stand in one of America's most hallowed sports grounds and come together in support of his vision that started as a dream in 1982.

Regarding attendance, the rest of the world was invited to Chicago and CHOSE not to come - there was no attempt by the Federation or Chicago 2006 to exclude anyone. You can't hold the Federation or the Chicago organizers accountable for individual decisions. GLISA has European roots, as does Montreal -- it was only natural for Montreal's numbers to be comprised mainly of Europeans and Canadians.

Sydney was 1/3 Australian, 1/3 American, and 1/3 Other - the host city/country always draws a higher percentage of attendees than anyone else (that is especially true of the host CITY), and, like it or not, American athletes represent nearly half of all competitors at the Gay Games and Outgames combined. I don't see that changing much in the near future, which is one of the main reasons the Outgames organizers should pay special attention to whom they are courting -- otherwise, Copenhagen will be just be another Eurogames.

[ August 09, 2006, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: saxnhoy ]

I must disagree,

Kevin's posting is totally appropriate, because the the whole time prioir to 'Games 2006', Montreal were reporting to have more sports registrants than Chicago. They were marketing this fact on a regular basis.

Judging by the sports participant figures in this thread, it appears that this was in fact untrue? ...

This has now become a matter of integrity.

Chris Morgan

On choosing ...
If the figures now being cited on this website are true, Montreal in reality had about 8,100 sports participants. They've issued a press release indicating that 40% of those were from Canada and 20% from the US. That means 3,240 were non-Canadian/non-U.S.

We've acknowledged that 2700 of our approximately 11,500 participants were from outside of the U.S. and I appreciate your acknowledging that the decision by non-Americans to come here wasn't something we could overly influence. I disagree that it had primarily to do with the HIV policy, however. It had much more to do generally with the policies of this American government. Of the 2700, about 200 of those were Canadian. That means 2,500 of our participants were non-Canadian/non-U.S - a difference of only about 740.

Roots
Truly, GLISA's roots are Canadian, not European. The genesis came from Montreal, funding comes from Montreal, the majority of those who organize it and lead it come from Montreal and other parts of Canada and their public statements were (documented here last year) often written by Montreal 2006 representatives. To their credit they are working to broaden their appeal beyond Canada.

The FGG's roots are certainly American having been founded here. But the FGG deserves a great deal of credit for moving its annual meetings and Gay Games from country to country, working to encourge and fund participation in the organization by non-Americans and to cultivate relationships with many of the strongest and most significant non-American and international sports groups. The track record there is very significant and they've shown a tendency to evolve, adapt and improve.

I'm pleased that in the process the non-Americans haven't demonized the Americans who contribute greatly to the Gay Games movement. All of those volunteers deserve praise regardless of their country of origin.

Hi Kevin,

I am not sure where you got your press release from, regarding the Outgames - but here is the actual press release with the actual numbers (you appear to have a source that doesn't cite the same numbers at all). This comes directly from the latest Outgames press release:

Participants
Number of Conference Participants 1,516
Number of Conference Presenters 511
Number of Participants in Sports Events 10,248
Number of Participants in Cultural Events 835

And here are the regional breakdowns:

Origin of Participants Canada: 39%
United States:19%
Germany: 7%
Netherlands: 6%
Australia: 6%
United Kingdom: 5%
France: 3%
Others: 15%

These numbers appear to me, to be significantly more worldy represented than that from the Gay Games. Although I've not been able to track down the Gay Game statistics ANYWHERE on their website (man, that is a terrible website), I have "heard" that in fact, 20% of Gay Game participants were from Chicago alone (this you acknowldge), with well over 50% being from the United States.

Let's be fair and honest here - most likely for political reasons (Bush, American politics in general), Montreal was the chosen location for most athletes outside the United States. In terms of overall proportion, the Outgames was a WORLD event, while Gaygames appear to be very American focused.

I would also highly suggest that it would make sense and hold off on criticising GLISA for the Canadian focus on financies, etc. Let's remember that this is a VERY fledgling organization. It doesn't have 24 years of history the way Gay Games does.

In fact, given the 24 year history of Gay Games, they should be much further along than they are.

Let's put criticism where it should be applied, in context - to both Gay and Outgames.

[ August 09, 2006, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Rastuurman ]

Back to the topic for this thread - "Sports: Gay Games vs. Outgames".

It appears that there were ONLY around 8,100 sports participants in Montreal (NOT 10,248) from the lack of adjustments to estimates posted earlier.

Can someone from Outgames please provide registration numbers by sport or at least provide this for where a sport's participation is understated by more than a 100 in the summary previously posted?

Otherwise, the 25% overstatement of the number of athletes in Montreal should be corrected immediately and publicly.

Perpertuation of a false athlete participation number makes other numbers coming out of Montreal (spectators, ceremonies attendance, financial) lack credibility.

Sportguy22 - where is this 8 000 sum odd reference coming from? I have not been at all able to track down that reference anywhere.

Can you please provide a link or at least a citation?

Thanks.

Rastuurman - the sport by sport athlete participant detail to arrive at 8,100 for Montreal sports participants is on the first page of this thread. This was derived from speaking to some of the sports organizers, reviewing team sport schedules and results (where possible).

Any adjustments based upon better information is welcomed.

What is troubling is that even with some major adjustments, it seems unlikely that the number of athletes in Montreal will come close to figures published by the organizers.

[ August 09, 2006, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: SportsGuy22 ]

Rastuurman - it's such a pleasure having you contributing to this conversation. What's your original screen name again?

One thing that you seem to be ignoring is the obviously incorrect "official" information being issued from Montreal. Claims of sold out sports events that turned out to have bare minimums (basketball for example), grossly inflated visitor and spectator estimates (in marketing materials and now in official announcements, documentably inaccurate by media accounts and now from DiverCite) are just a few examples cited here. Elsewhere on this website is a comparison of the documentable sports registration figures from the two events that suggests as few as 8,100 registered participants in Montreal. Presuming the 39% Canadian and 19% U.S. figures are accurate in the press release itself, that is from where I drew my analysis.

While I'm on this topic ... why is a large U.S. increase seen as bad but large Dutch, Aussie and Canadian numbers seen as ... international? We saw a 100% increase in U.S. participants from Sydney 2002 to Chicago 2006. Not surprising given the return of the Gay Games to the U.S. for the first time since 1994.

Aussies had an increase of 700% in participation over Amsterdam and the Dutch had 400% more in Amsterdan than in Sydney.

The Canadians saw a much bigger increase from Sydney 2002 when they had 816. Depending upon which number you take - the 8,100 number that seems documentable would indicate a 386% increase in Canadian participation, and the Press Release number suggests 490% increase.

So why is the U.S. number cited as how awful the Gay Games were internationally, but a much larger (and relative to world population and western population) Canadian increase isn't cited similarly as problematic?

A key reason to move the Gay Games around is so that people who are more local can participate. So guess what - it happend in the U.S. and happen even more strongly in Canada.

I've not claimed that Chicago Gay Games was more global than the Montreal event. What I have noted is that the events actually weren't that far apart in their international appeal at the sports level and that the Gay Games actually did pretty well given the head-start of Montreal and the view the rest of the world has of our government. I think that is a testament to the hard work we did in Europe and Australia especially as well as the overall appreciation for the role that the Gay Games has played in making events like the OutGames even possible.

[ August 09, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: KevinB ]

Hi Sportguy,

I thought maybe that was what you were refering to. The problem with that is that it has not been verified from my understanding.

Perhaps neither the 8100 or the 10 000 figures are correct - but according to the Outgames, their official tabulations indicate over 10 000 people.

I guess we will have to wait for additional data to come out to verify those numbers.

Hi Kevin,

I have to say that I am not sure if you were being sarcastic regarding my contribution to the site! As for my original screen name - I've never posted on the site before and I've never had a screen name before, other than this one.

Some guy made a joke about me having changed my name or something - but that was incorrect. I've been wanting to contribute to these discussions for the longest time, but had spam/password issues which I only recently worked out.

You do make good points regarding the numbers - and like I've said, that is an issue.

However, regardless of these issues I stil don't see why it's hard to admit that the Outgames were a VERY well run, organized and profiessional event (I am not saying you are one of these people).

Yes, inflated numbers do appear to be an issue - but not something that should have an overall impact on the games.

Rastuurman - the majority of the sports participant numbers are verified.

For every team sport the number is verified via review of the schedules posted (see detailed post with links to schedules)

For every event where results are posted the participants numbers are verified.

For some of the other sports the organizers or those very close to the sport verified the estimate or provided the basis for the estimate.

It would be very unlikely that Montreal's final numbers for sports participants will reach 8,500 or even 9,000 (if ever provided) but, once again, input to arrive at accurate sports participation numbers is welcomed.

[ August 09, 2006, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: SportsGuy22 ]

Actually, almost all of the figures shown above were easily verified. I think SportGuy's point is that the ones where estimates were provided are all mostly smaller sports where even dramatic and historic increases wouldn't be enough to get to the claimed figures.

I would assume then that we either wait for official data to be presented, or someone simply contact GLISA to get the numbers.

It would be baffling how a discrpancy of 2 000 people would occur, so I am thinking it will be more of a waiting endeavour.

"However, regardless of these issues I stil don't see why it's hard to admit that the Outgames were a VERY well run, organized and professional event (I am not saying you are one of these people)."

These debates are like jello. I'm not talking about how well the event was organized. I would expect that it would have been with significant government subsidies and other resources and a clear home-town commitment to the success of the event. It is clear from reports that they did a good job.

But that wasn't my point, now was it?

Sadly, I don't find any comfort in the idea of waiting for GLISA or M2006 to issue numbers given the track record here. I'm grateful that SportGuy has done the analysis so that we can all view the discrepancies for ourselves. As someone from Quebec, I would think you would insist upon more than just "waiting."

[ August 09, 2006, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: KevinB ]

Hi Kevin,

Although not your point it still does leave room for further interpretation (which I am sure is more than invited, if we're honest now).

If you're ONLY focusing on the issue of number discrepancies, than that's fine - but I suspect that the fierce focus has alternative purposes.

Please correct me if I am incorrect.

Also, I have to admit that I am rather baffled with your issue with "government support" for any games? Every level of government gave around 1.5 million each, give or take.

They certainly made SIGNIFICANTLY more than that in revenue from visitors, etc. It was certainly a profitable endeavour for every level of government. Also, I am PROUD to have a country, province and city that are so supportive of my community.

I am sure that future Outgame business models will either incorperate significant government contributions, or alternatives - otherwise they will not be awarded a the games.

[ August 09, 2006, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Rastuurman ]

I'm surprised as a resident of Quebec that you'd be content to just wait for new info from folks who seem to be giving wrong information. Doesn't this bother you at all?

"They certainly made SIGNIFICANTLY more than that in revenue from visitors, etc. It was certainly a profitable endeavour for every level of government. Also, I am PROUD to have a country, province and city that are so supportive of my community. "

Again, not my point. What I am saying is that I'm surprised that government agencies that controlled the event would issue these kind of numbers that seem to be verifiably inaccurate. Clearly the investment was worth it - even at lower numbers that could probably be verified - and I would be proud if I were you also. Chicago's government couldn't have been more supportive of our efforts and having our Mayor vocalize that at both ceremonies was tremendous.

But all of this can and is true, but it wasn't my point.

Correct me if I am wrong, KevinB, but GLISA was formed after the European Gay and Lesbian Sport Federation relinquished thier seat on the Federation of Gay Games' Board of Directors to join with the Rendez Vous organization to form GLISA and stage the Outgames. I have to admit, I am confused on this point. They are still a member of the Federation but not GLISA - how is that possible? While control of GLISA may have been Canadian this go around, clearly the Outgames was influenced by the European federation and modeled their event after the Eurogames, which they have staged for a number of years.

I agree with your analysis and support of the Federation and its continued desire to affiliate with groups such as IGLFA and IGLA (which I maintain is still one of the primary reasons why Gay Games was a success), but to blame just the Canadians and not the Europeans is unjust. Both were equal partners in creating the Outgames, despite who is ultimately more involved today.

I am happy to hear that Chicago was more international than it seemed as I do agree with Cyd's observation that it was very American, at least on the surface. I love Chicago, but few will be able to argue that Montreal is one of the major gay destinations in the world. As someone with close ties to Europe (and being a dual citizen myself), I had a number of friends balk at the idea of spending a week in Chicago over Montreal. Again, not to knock Chicago but, for many, I think it became a matter of choosing between travel destinations rather than sports competition. I'm sure I have opened up a can of whoop ass there, so let the comments begin!!

[ August 09, 2006, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: saxnhoy ]

Saxnhoy:

EGLSF quit the Federation of Gay Games after the 2003 Annual Meeting.

EGLSF never has been, and is not currently, a member of GLISA.

Nor has it re-joined the Federation of Gay Games.

It is a member of neither.

Kevin,

Does it BOTHER me as a Québecer? Is that a serious question? Not at all! In fact, problems with number counts are not really high on my list of concerns, and frankly I am rather surprsied that you've devoted so much attention to it.

As a Québecer, I am concerned with:

A) Did we lose money?
Did it serve the world gay community well?
C) Was it an overall success?

The answer is yes to all of those things - so I am fairly happy with how things have turned out! Especially since the dread, gloom and doom of some peoples predictions turned out to be far from the case.

I will however become concerned with the numebrs if a few months from now there isn't resolution. The games JUST ended less than ONE week ago. I am sorry, but one week out of the first run of the games really doesn't have me concerned over something so trivial at the moment.

Really - we need to move on past the bickering over silly things like this.

I am sure that there are a million things I can quible over regarding Gay Games - but seriously, was it a success? Yes - so let's just say good job - and be critical of the things we need to be WHEN we should be critical.

You might want to ease up a little before becoming so damning in judgement or presumption.

Just my suggestion.

November of 2003 - Montreal and FGG call it quits (tons of text on this topic already)

Two or three days later - Montreal announces it will hold an event anyway and will form Think Tank to discuss future of event.

January 2004 - Montreal brings people to Montreal for Think Tank. (Think Tank urges not to start a 2nd quadrennial event, incidentally.) Canadians far outnumber anyone else at the meeting. Leadership is chosen and is mostly Canadian.

February 2004 - Montreal announces formation of GLISA and that a 2nd quadrennial event is now part of its mission. Co-leaders are Canadians with board members that include one European - a Dane, an Aussie and one New Yorker (who subsequently resigned).

March 2004 - EGLSF votes to leave FGG. EGLSF does not vote to join GLISA. (Votes to join EGLSF in 2005 and 2006 also failed. Votes to rejoin the FGG also failed.)

September of 2005 - GLISA forms its Board of Directors. Canadians remain co-president. Staff is also Canadian. Offices are in Canada.

The current board of GLISA (12) includes 2 Europeans and 4 Canadians. (Also 3 Aussies, 2 Americans, 1 South American.)

Before people get their knickers in a knot, I'm NOT saying that having Canadians as co-presidents is bad. I'm only pointing out that GLISA is not a European organization nor born of Europeans and EGLSF.

My points aren't about high numbers but about veracity and integrity. But I've said that before.

Yes - yes you have said that before, and frankly the topic is rather boring at this point.

Moving on to more relevant issues of the Gay and Outgames....

Here is a timeline documenting how the European Gay and Lesbian Sports Federation ("EGLSF") has been initimately involved in supporting the creation of the Gay and Lesbian International Sports Association ("GLISA") and the Outgames:

November 2003

Équipe Montréal withdraws from the Federation of Gay Games ("FGG") after the failed negotiation at the FGG’s annual assembly in Chicago with Rendez-Vous Montréal 2006, who were originally awarded the Gay Games by the FGG.

March 4, 2004

"On 4 March, Rendez-Vous Montréal 2006 signed an agreement with the EGLSF outlining provisions for the exchange of information on the successful organisation of sporting competitions. This agreement also provided for the promotion of the Montréal games by the EGLSF at the various European sports activities it coordinates each year." (www.montreal2006.org)

March 7, 2004

"On Sunday, 7 March, the annual assembly of the EGLSF, voted in favour of withdrawing from the FGG.

The EGLSF and Rendez-Vous Montréal 2006 have had strong ties for many years now. The European organization was firmly in favour of Montréal when its candidature for the Gay Games was unveiled in 2001 in Johannesburg. The EGLSF also voted overwhelmingly against the withdrawal of the Gay Games in Montréal during the FGG’s annual assembly in Chicago last November."

(http://fugues.vortex.qc.ca/main.cfm?p=100&Article_ID=4384)

March 29, 2004

"In Boston on March 27, 28 and 29, GLISA was born. The founding assembly also announced that GLISA will immediately begin negotiations with Rendez-Vous Montréal 2006 to sign a partnership agreement for Montréal to host the first World OutGames." (www.montreal2006.org)

It is clear, not only from EGLSF's intentions and actions but from the subsequent involvement of one of EGLSF's officer's on the GLISA Board of Directors that the EGLSF has been more than just a neutral entity in this division, whether or not they are not members of GLISA formally.

[ August 09, 2006, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: saxnhoy ]

No .. the topic is not boring.

Participant figures at Gay Games and Montreal is highly relevant and topical.

Press releases were being issued by Montreal, right through to the last moments.

These releases appear to have been overstating their participant figures.

Is nobody bothered by this?

Because, if not?

You should be bothered!

Integrity.

Chris Morgan

Yay drama!!!

HA! I know - very dramatic! I was expecting a group of gay athletes to be not such dramatic queens... seriously, it is rather disappointing. It is actually quite... disheartening since I'd expect more...

The exchange of info between M2006 and EGLSF was also offered to Gay Games Chicago.

Perhaps EGLSF officers will chime in on this thread to document what I've told you about this. I have been at each EGLSF meeting since 2004 and so I can say with much confidence that while members of EGLSF have been sympathetic to GLISA, they have never had a formal relationship that has been any more extensive than the one they had with Chicago 2006, nor were they intimately involved in the founding of GLISA. You are right - an officer of EGLSF is also on the GLISA Board. But they've made it clear from the beginning that this is a coincidence, not a direct link.

Just an FYI to those who may be unaware. The EGLSF did come VERY close to joining GLISA two years ago though. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but the vote at their meeting in 2005 was something a 40 -40 tie vote to join GLISA or just a couple of votes short of a majority that was needed to join. And that was apparently after a full out blitz by FGG supporters at that meeting on voters at that meeting to stop the GLISA membership vote from passing. (And there is nothing wrong with the FGG supporters doing that).

So clearly there is some fairly substantial support among many LGBT sport organizations in Europe for GLISA and European numbers at the Outgames in some ways reflect that support too. I believe of the over 100 GLBT organizations that now belong to GLISA, about 25% of them are European organizations including such groups as Pan Idraet - the Danish GLBT sport organization, who in effect will be our hosts for 2009. And a lot of people from a number of organizations that have not yet joined GLISA were always saying hey let's wait to if GLISA can actually deliver a good event before we join them. Well - we all know what the reviews have been like. So it will be interesting to see if GLISA can take advantage of the positive buz to grow its membership.

Pat

No not dramatic.

Direct!

I find it interesting that you find my stance 'disappointing' and'disheartening', when all I'm asking for is the truth.

It looks like you are happy to accept these lies?

This is now my last posting on the subject.

I've got a World Championship to try and win ... !

Chris Morgan

Sorry Ras that was me and I was joking. I was accused of the same thing when I questioned the responses of one regular poster as being vague and deceptive. The response I got back was that maybe that poster really didn’t know. I find it hard to believe that a "Gay Games Co-chair" would be in the dark regarding anything.

Hi Not Fooled,

No worries - I assumed that you were joking

Certainly there are those in Europe who support GLISA. There are those who support the FGG. There are those who support both. There have been votes, close and not. But the implied message that people seem to want to take here is that somehow GLISA is the European counter to the American-dominated FGG. This is not the case historically or practically. GLISA's foundation is in Montreal, period full stop. That GLISA is expanding is a testament to their work, but this is not a "Europe vs. America" organizational battle. If anything, it is founded in the same issue from 3 years ago - Montreal (not even all of Canada) vs. FGG.

Incidentally, Equippe Montreal was not kicked out of the FGG. They were not allowed to participate in debate and vote about the Montreal 2006 contract at the Nov 2003 Annual Meeting after they'd established that they were not independent of the M2006 organization, proven in part by their decision to misappropriate FGG property (database of Gay Games participants) and use it in violation of FGG rules for Board members to promote Montreal's position in the negotiations with the FGG. They subsequently left after negotiations ended. (The independence of city teams who are the FGG Board is one that affected Team Chicago's membership also. Their membership was delayed one year in 2001 or 2002 because of concerns that they were too closely aligned with CGI).)

I'm sure I'll be accused of something for bringing this up again but the wrong info was offered above.