And Kevin - I'm sure the Western Cup people will provide you with a great time when you do. It is a fun event.

And in a case of timing is everything - until minutes ago I was pretty much convinced that I would either be just staying in Toronto for Easter Weekend - doing the family thing or still had an outside hope - if my own team could ever decide - of possibly going to Montreal that weekend. But it turns out that I just might end up in Calgary afterall. A friend from one of the other Toronto teams - who I have played with at the odd tournament in the past - in places like Vanouver - just emailed me this afternoon asking if I would be interested in playing with them in Calgary.

Actually kind of a sweet story here, one of my friends on that team, from here in Toronto, actually met his new boyfriend - from Calgary - while at the Outgames in Montreal. And he is in fact moving to Calgary next month to be with him. So he will be playing with the Toronto team that i may end up joining for the event in Calgary.

hi kevin

so now its the melbourne outgames! as the advertising said at mardi gras fair day yesterday!.

apparantly they have IMG on board as sponsors.

they are thinking BIG..of course have letters of support and lots of people are coming from Asia pacific..same talk same phrases same attitude, history will repeat itself. when i suggested that we try and get an australian games up and running before we try and get bigger, the people involved in glisa didn't even know there had been such a thing...so no experience of what to expect.


and copenhagen is all go go go!

lots of denial about the lack of credibility and lies of deceit by glisa and montreal..all exagerated and we didn't have the full story. eveything is fab and wonderful. i did say that midsumma sports would go ahead anyway but they seem to think this attachment will make the local LGBT sports community bigger. it may or may not.

kate

Well hopefully this version of the Australian Games will be a success. The way that will happen will be the hard work of the Aussies. Something tells me that the OutGames brand won't be a benefit at all, but of course they will take credit if things work out and blame the Aussies (or maybe the Quebec Government and the people of Montreal again) if it doesn't work out. :-)

Anyone know how to find results from Outgames 2007? The Montreal site is a distant memory, it would seem. The reason I ask is because I was listening to This American Life and they had a segment on in their recent broadcast "Quiz Show" about a painfully shy Irishman who won the most money of any contestant in the Irish version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire - 250,000 pounds.

At the very end of the segment, they said that the contestant had since won something else - a gold medal in TENNIS at the Outgames. I was hoping to confirm via the Outgames site.

Funnily enough, I found this via Google: an English dude who blogged about his experiences at both the Gay Games and the Outgames ended up teaming with said contestant (and D singles winner) but losing in the first round (apparently Montreal allowed players to play down in doubles, which stinks if you ask me). Coincidences being what they are, it turns out the guy he lost to in Chicago, second round, was none other than Will, the guy who ended up being my doubles partner in our gold medal run (thanks to the disqualification he mentions in his blog post)!

Any way, small world, GLISA sux, carry on!

The First World OutGames was sanctioned by the Gayand Lesbian Tennis Alliance, and the results are still preserved on the GLTA site as a service of the GLTA to the community.

This link may help:

http://www.tennisinformation.com/tourny/5/...4/5/default.asp

You can click on players, draws, or scoreboard to check it out.

Cool, thanks rtwilliams!

I'm just heading out from my office to the annual Tourism Montreal trade show here in Toronto. I'll ask around and see what if any news I can dig up regarding the financial mess coming out of Montreal. I'll let you know what - if anything I find out.

Pat

For those who continue to quarrel about OutGames numbers vs. Gay Games numbers - notice that the official tennis results document only 355 tennis competitors in Montreal with 691 in Chicago. The Montreal website may be down and so the work done last August documenting only about 8,200 athletes might not be verifiable anymore, but at least in tennis, one of the historically largest LGBT sports at the Gay Games, we can see how the OutGames had about 1/2 as many competitors.

Calgary is also hosting the International Frontrunners (IFR) annual meeting

I read the public minutes of the IFR annual meetings for 2004,2005, and 2006. I wanted to see what was being accomplished from the parent organization in each meeting. Assisting clubs, women's outreach, joining GLISA. IFR Meetings: 2006 Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2005 San Francisco, California, USA.
2004 Seattle, Washington, USA.

The interesting thing I noted, was that they had so many proxy votes in 2006, and how many GLISA IFR members attended the Chicago meeting in 2006. The USA IFR member cities did not show up for the meeting, or they had a Canadian proxy voting for them. It explains why Calgary was chosen for the next IFR meeting. IFR meetings are now heavy with Canadian cities and many of those folks proxy vote for other cities.

I am wondering what happened to the Frontrunner leaders of the US city teams? I doubt many will attend this meeting in Calgary also.

From the July 2006 meeting in Chicago, the minutes of the meeting have Rachael Corbet reporting 12,000 registered for Montreal and 1500 in Track and Field. I went to Montreal for 8 days. August numbers showed 10,248 total with around 400-500 people in Track and Field. I wonder if they will ammend the minutes?

The minutes are public: http://www.frontrunners.org/meetings/index.php
http://www.frontrunners.org

I was asked to attend the International Frontrunners (IFR) annual meeting, which is going to be held in Calgary on Thursday and Friday preceding the Calgary Outgames. After reviewing the costs, I have so far declined. Am I failing to represent US? I wonder if I am part of the problem. I am very busy volunteering for other organizations. I also find it hard to go to another Outgames until GLISA and Montreal go public with the creditors and bankruptcy after 2006. I can't imagine only attending the IFR meeting and flying home.

I think I am making a good decision. I will get to Calgary another year.

Kelly Stevens
Seattle Frontrunners
Team Seattle

Hey Kelly:
This may seem odd coming from me of all people - but you have absolutely no reason to feel you are part of 'the problem'. Anybody who obviously cares as much as you do - and as far as I can tell has been very active in supporting the work of the Frontrunners in the past - should feel proud of your contribution. The only real 'problem' we have is there are not more of you. Because if there were more people like you - I suspect there would be so many people involved in organizing and volunteering for GLBT sport that any discussion about GLISA and the FGG being one organization too many - would be moot.

I'll support anybody who I see supporting GLBT sport - be it a local tournament, sponsors of local tournaments, the FGG, GLISA, etc. By the way fromwhat I understand Calgary thus far has a volleyball registration level comparable to previous Western Cups. So depending on how you want to look at it - that is either good news, bad news or neutral news.

Cheers,
Pat

Kelly - I wish you were going, but not because your lack of attendance says anything about you. It just seems to me that very few really care about the honesty and ethics of GLISA or want to take any action about integrity issues. The strategy of the mostly-Canadian-GLISA to stack the IFR meeting for voting purposes sounds like an extension of this lack of integrity. Something tells me that you would at least force some to look at the reality of the situation instead of the bright lights and shiny objects. Maybe others will accomplish that goal. It is unfortunate and telling at the same time of all the major international federations, only IFR is a member of GLISA (plus two much smaller groups and one that is basically one person).

Kevin

Interesting, has anyone else noticed that Exexecutive Director Rachel Corbett has disappeared from the GLISA website? Did this much-touted professional finally realize she'd fallen in with a suspect crowd, or did the leadership realize that as their executive director she had - or should have had - intimate knowledge of the pending financial collapse in Montreal and finally took action? We'll probably never get the real answer. Still, it is odd (though typical) given how much they'd hung their hat on her professionalism that she would be gone without as much as a peep.

Actually I had not noticed that - but you are right softballstud - any mention of her seems to have disappeared. I have no idea what is up there - I'll ask around when I am in Calgary.

Well I was surfing around the GLISA site trying to figure out what was up with the missing Rachel - I quickly hit the link for Copenhagen 2009 to see what may be up there - not having looked at their site for a couple of months. It seems they have been quite busy over there for the last few months hiring staff, contacting sponsors, making appearances at events like the ITB Berlin - the world's largest tourism event, the EGLSF meetings in Madrid. Two items in particular really jumped out at me. They mention meeting the Cologne 2010 Gay Games people in Madrid and provide a link to their site on the Copenhagen 2009 site. A nice sign of cooperation. And perhaps more significantly are what I consider to be very reasonable and perhaps even conservative projections for their event. They state they are expecting approximately 8,000 participants - 1,500 of those for the human rights conference part of the event - meaning 6500 for the sports aspect of the event. Even with just 8,000 participants that will still make it the largest sport and cultural event ever held in Denmark.
http://www.copenhagen2009.org/tourist/outgames_2009/news
One of the tag lines they are using to describe the spirit of World Outgames in Copenhagen - 'Love of freedom - freedom to love'. - Nice.

Pat,

I look forward to hearing back from you in regards to what is going on with the silent goings of the ED of GLISA. Even you will have to admit that this is a strange situation.

Of course I think that it is incredibly appropriate due to the fact that she was completely inept inlooking out for the brand that the Dolans of the world were trying to create. Considering that she came in after the rest of the kafuffle, it could be understood that her stance could have been what it was initially. The issue is that over time it had to have become clear to anyone that had eyes and ears that there was a lot of lying and misdirection going on. It really shows her lack of integrity as well as the lack of integrity of the GLISA folks to let this change occur without a sound. Where is their transparency? Honesty?

The GLISA pillar #4 reads as follows:

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.

One would hope that the Copenhagen people did not stumbke across this news by going to the website in an attempt to send her an e-mail and then find that her profile was gone. That would certainly not be very progessional would it?

Ken

Some news on Montreal Outgames. The agreement proposed to creditors is: for those owed less than $500, fully paid back; for over $500, a reimbursement of between 20 to 25%.

Debt is now $1.3 million and they estimate $400,000 can still be recover so the final deficit will be under 1 million.

Montreal Outgames organizers are not yet speaking, they are waiting the agreement to be accepted April 25.

There were no more details given. The final deficit number will be what people are still waiting and wanting to be paid I suppose. I don't think the $3 milllion in forgiven loans will be in that deficit. (or if others were convince of not claiming some money) The final deficit number that will be anounced in two weeks under 1 million will be the "legal deficit" and not the "operations deficit" as I see it - unless they state the loans were paid back.

In December the debt was near $2.1 million, and over $800,000 that was wainting to be recovered. Perhaps half of that was recovered; don't know what explains the rest of the difference (donations/fundraising, agreement/convincing with some creditors, some creditors not doing the paperwork to be on the legal creditor's list, accounting errors). If all money was recovered the deficit was estimated at 1.4 million.

While looking if I could find more details on the Courts website I came across a decision by the worker's health compensation board. An ex-Outgames sports director was claiming she got hurt lifting promo material on a trip. In the decision, the Outgames finance and human resource director said the sports director employee was fired in August 2005 because she didn't have the qualities required and the leadership needed for the work needed until August 2006.

[quote name='KevinB' date='Feb 6 2007, 07:19 PM' post='317610']
One Down?

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.

end quote.

OKAY, WHAT CURRENT PROBLEMS DOES TEAM VANCOUVER HAVE??? There's money in the bank. Board meetings are happening. Athletes go about their training. Some think ahead to the events they'll go to. Sure many members are in the "run silent, run deep" phase that happens between games, but things are running along smoothly.

So let's hear about "Team Vancouver's current problems." News to me.

Chuck,

Are you really asking for the Vancouver laundry to be aired here on this discussion board?

At present there is a minimal board of directors - I know this because I keep getting pleas for more people to join the Board. I was also inadvertently invited to one of the most recent Board meetings and it only involved 4 people.

The last AGM included an announcement that there were several vacant positions that interested parties could run for with a statement that the President position was already determined. This is clearly against the By-Laws of the Society.

Team Vancouver cannot now or ever take responsibility for the fact that there are Gays and Lesbians in Vancouver participating in sport. They do nothing to make that happen in Vancouver and based on their own goals, never will. The individual sport organizations do that work themselves.

Team Vancouver has blatant misinformation on their website. Team Vancouver was not a founding member of the Federation of Gay Games.

Team Vancouver wants to be an umbrella organization but there are no direct relationship between Team Vancouver and the sport organizations in the city. Sure they share info sometimes (right now you would think there is nothing going on in Vancouver if you looked at the Team Vancouver calendar - the website has not been updated in quite some time)

As for your assertion that things are functioning because there are meetings. So what? Are they actually doing anything? I suspect that all of the people tha tlike to get things done have left those behind that are responsible for the current lack of functioning.

I would have to say that I was quite surprised to not see Team Vancouver selling uniforms (at least t-shirts) to the athletes going to Calgary last weekend.

Ken

Hi there,

I thought I should be more specific in regards to the claims the current gang at Team Vancouver are making. I have done a cut and paste from their website:

Team Vancouver was created in 1989 to bring Gay Games III to Vancouver. Following what became a game of firsts, first international record, first truly international Gay Games, first cultural festival for a Gay Games, Team Vancouver continued to play a role on the global stage as a founding member of the Federation of Gay Games (FGG). Team Vancouver stayed on to organized BC's entries in subsequent Games in New York, Amsterdam and in Sydney, Australia. Team Vancouver hosted the FGG AGM in 2001 and partnered with the Vancouver Parks Board in presenting a civic reception at the Roundhouse Community Centre.

http://www.teamvancouver.net/tv/about.htm

This group is not even aware of the history of the organization they pretend to run.

Fact - The group that brought the Gay Games to Vancouver was Vancouver Arts and Athletics which was lead by Richard Dopson and other notables. That group was part of the FGG founding meeting that was held in Seattle which was then followed by a meeting Vancouver prior to GG3.

Fact Team Vancouver was formed so that the folks in this area of BC would have a unified team for the event. The new organization was not part of the group that put on the Gay Games.

Fact Team Vancouver hosted the FGG AGM in 2001 but there was no partnership with the Vancouver Parks Board in regards to this event. The only partner was Tourism Vancouver. The Parks Board charged us to use their facility for the Civic Reception. I know as I was the organizer of that week of meetings and events. Again, the current Board Members paid no attention to any of those details.

Perhaps their #1 task is to clean up their website and learn more about the history of their own organization!

Ken

Hey Zeno:
Those deficit numbers you mention for Montreal are in line with what I have been hearing for the last couple of months from some friends in various sports leagues in Montreal who know some of those individuals who supposedly should be in the know about this stuff.

Since I had absolutely no way to know if what they were telling me was true - I felt it best not to post those kinds of numbers here until they were actually out in public and accepted by the creditors. If true - I'm glad to hear that by the sounds of it all small creditors (under $500.00) will be getting paid in full. Of couse that is not nearly as good as everybody getting paid in full. Although still a massive debt - at least it seems it may not be as bad as it was sounding like a few months ago. I hope as many of the creditors do get as much as possible from the settlement. If they provided the services they deserve to be paid and the failure to pay them all in full is not good. Simple as that.

Mind you when one starts to look at those numbers - if true - final debt in the $1.0 million range. Hmmmm - 4,000 more American registrations at $295.00 a pop. Gee that is over $1.1 million. Oh well - what could have been. And before everybody goes ape on me I do acknowledge those numbers probably do not include the 'forgiven' loans. But a lot of that money was from Tourism Montreal - who did get a lot of publicity out of the event - and the event really in a lot of ways was their baby to begin with. And the Quebec and Canadian governments certainly collected a lot of GST and PST (taxes) from all the money spent on hotel rooms, meals, souvenirs etc etc. The positive economic impact of the event was certainly much greater than what money came from government sources. So even though I am a taxpayer here, I don't get too worked up about those funds. Governments blow money all the time on things like this. Just see Montreal's track record with the Olympics or Aquatics championships. Or how much money governments hand over to build stadiums used 9 times a year for football teams that make millions for owners and players - but not nearly as much for the general taxpayers.

I am still very upset and disappointed about private individuals and companies not being paid in full for their services though. That is an undeniable black eye.

Pat

Clearly the article that Zeno references is not, by itself, the whole story. It is an "update" that presumes people have some knowledge of the topic. Pat wants us to forget everything from before I suppose - no big surprise. But before we allow Pat's review of a simple article to result in the revision of history, recall these elements:

The $2.1 million is the deficit after the $3 million Quebec government loan is eliminated from the equation. This loan, part of almost $8 million in government funds expended for the OutGames (out of a budget that was just $15 million or so), was to have been repaid. Quebec has obviously realized that it will not be repaid and so has "forgiven" it but the minister was very clearly on the record as noting that they expected it to be repaid and so it is considered part of the debt. At best, this officially reduces the deficit but still exposes the dramatic financial mismanagement of the OutGames, and also endangers the entire quadrennial sports movement by suggesting that massive (by our community's standards) government funds are required to hold such an event. At worst, this also represents a whitewashing of the true financial picture as the government may realize that yet another sports event debacle in Montreal damages the likelihood of future events being awarded. The true deficit was $5.3 million, perhaps now somewhat reduced by some discovered receivables. The rest of Pat's stuff about economic impact is rubbish. Most taxpayers wouldn't consider an $8 million transfer of government funds to the private sector hospitality industry as all that good of a deal.

As to the 4,000 Americans coming to Montreal, I suppose we have to revisit that sad tale again.
1) "What might have been" if the Gay Games hadn't also taken place last summer presumes that the FGG should have just given up and let Montreal run with its plans. Sorry to say - the 4,000 Americans doesn't replace the other $4 million in deficit.
2) "What might have been" if Montreal had been the only game in town is that the Gay Games brand could have been completely destroyed. The FGG can now say that they avoided the Montreal nightmare by sticking to their guns on finances. The issue here was clearly one of character, ethics and business sense, not "American numbers."
3) "What might have been" if Montreal Tourism hadn't resorted to a marketing campaign that played to anti-American feelings in Europe and other places, is that Americans (who aren't nearly as stupid as some Canadians seem to think) might have actually felt welcome to come to Montreal. How can you expect to use anti-Americanism to sell the event and then turn around and complain that not enough Americans would go?
4) "What might have been" if the OutGames organizers had been honest with their partners and the world from the beginning is that they should have been able to significantly reduce expenses in anticipation of fewer numbers at all levels. Instead, they inflated numbers every chance they got - still are, in fact. The thing that continues to stun me is that EVEN KNOWING they weren't getting anywhere their numbers and that they were clearly going to run a huge deficit, they didn't reduce expenses and didn't come clean to their partners. There is just no excuse for any of this.

We've gone on and on about this. Pat's typical (and somewhat sad) apologias notwithstanding, the simplistic notion that magically all of these issues would have gone away and money would have dropped from the sky if only the Gay Games in Chicago hadn't taken place and (of course) 4,000 more Americans had popped up to Montreal is ridiculous. Everyone - including Pat - should be grateful to the FGG that they stood up to the bullies at Montreal Tourism and didn't allow the Gay Games to be destroyed. Whatever you may think about the idea of a 2nd quadrennial, or the wonder and joy of Montreal, the facts about mismanagement, subtrefuge and deficits are plain and clear. Frankly, if a successful and highly competitive Chicago Gay Games marketing effort inadvertently exposed what really was going on in Montreal, I'm proud to have been part of that.

Okay. Having not checked this board for a while, I popped in for one last time to see if it had cleaned up. I saw the post mentioning the "problems" with Team Vancouver, and an old reply from you an the other thread where I asked, rhethorically, if we just couldn't be happy there are more gay sports events. For that I got a nasty rant from you accusing me of slamming the "worker bees." So I'm going to reply in two sections, and then have done with it.

1.) Team Vancouver. Any idiot who has ever been on the board of anything knows that if there is a single goal the board works for, in this case, the events this summer; then people do a big push toward it, achieve it, and then reassess their lives. There is ALWAYS a big turn-over of board after the Games. By the way, you'll also find people will let their memberships lapse between games!! QUEL HORROR! Find a city team where this doesn't happen. What is it with you and manufacturing problems?

Team Vancouver is completely volunteer. If there's something NOT happening you'd like to see, put up or shut up. Did any of the sports involved in Calgary yearn for a Team Vanc shirt? What did they do about it? As for the web site, see note on "completely volunteer." Are you interested in volunteering to upgrade it? Know anybody?

Re the FGG. I don't know when the FGG was formed and really don't care much. Go for it and give a history lesson on the events leading up it its forming. Educate us. (I won't be in rebuttal. I'm done with this pathetic thread.) Was it not sometime around GG III, when the games went from being local SF to international? Wasn't that in, oh, Vancouver? (Rhetorical question--don't need an answer.) In any case, the FGG, as we know, is rabid about its "Brand." If there is a mistake and the FGG gives a rat's ass, they could address it. Or if it bothers you so much, you could write a letter and take it on as a cause. Enough.

There's no dirty laundry.

Will address issue # 2 in next reply.

Hey Kevin:
On this one I don't think our opinions differ as much as you may think. Let me take some of your points and add my comments to indicate what I mean by that.

Re: government funding. Outside of the US - there usually is massive government funding for these kinds of events. Example - all the various Prides across Canada - - particularly Montreal's receive overall millions in funding from various government sources. Just like Toronto's Caribana festival - to name a non-gay similar event - receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from various government sources annually. But I agree with you completely Montreal 2006 organizers blew it by overspending by millions and that will make it more difficult to acquire similar levels of government funding in this country again were a city in Canada to bid on a future event.

Re: - economic impact. Again most (not all) taxpayers up here are not nearly as ornery about things like this as Americans with their cut taxes and spending to the bone mantra that dominates down there. And gay tourism is a growth industry that governments and tourism boards are spending millions on because they know in the long run it will be to their gain. The Gay Games - that turned into the Outgames was in fact part of a multi-million dollar multi-year plan by Tourism Montreal to make Montreal become recognized as one of THE gay destinations in all the world. And clearly they have succeeeded in doing so. The numbers of gay tourists Montreal now attract - has more than generated enough tax revenues and spin-off economic benefits for that city. That is why Montreal is continuing to AGGRESSIVELY go after the gay tourism market. For the second time within 6 or 7 years, next month Montreal is playing host to the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association convention. And remember - when new money comes into a community each new dollar that comes into the community gets re-spent by a factor of something like 8 times - so there is a signifcant impact with each new dollar drawn in. That is why governments spend tens of millions of dollars each year promoting tourism to their areas because they know it has a hugely positive economic impact.

Do you really think bidding cities for the Gay Games spend tens of thousands of dollars - and indeed in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars JUST ON THEIR BIDS for a Gay Games - just because they think it is will be a good thing to do for their gay sports community. Come on - get real!

As for your claim about those at the top of Montreal being involved in mismanagement and subtrefuge - as somebody who was lied to directly by these people on numerous occassions - I agree completely!

As for the hypothetical - what if? debate. Well one could reasonably hypothesize that if the FGG were to 'give in' and just let Montreal run their own show - and note I am not arguing here that is what they should have done - one could reasonably argue that Montreal could have easily spent hundreds of thousands less on marketing, not had to have offered so many discount registrations, probably attracted more sponsors - some of who you tapped into so successfully - and I would argue they would likely have attracted easily 6,000 - 7,000 more participants between those elsewhere in the world who were so fed up with the split that they put a pox on both houses, and my guess would be most of those 8,000 who came to Chicago would have come to Montreal - because there would have not been an ill advised anti-American campaign that apparently turned so many Americans off. But of couse we could argue this until the cows come home.

I will state though that one of the best things to come out of Montreal though are some of the things like the Rights Conferences that GLISA have mandated be part of all their events. I think that is a significant and positive devlopment. And I would also put forth the argument that the FGG has itself dramatically improved its structure - and I'm not so sure that would have happened without the split and without the GLISA threat. And I do beleive there is room for both in this evergrowing GLBT sport community. Again I know you disagree with that.

Pat

Posted by chuckvanc

Okay. Having not checked this board for a while, I popped in for one last time to see if it had cleaned up. I saw the post mentioning the "problems" with Team Vancouver, and an old reply from you an the other thread where I asked, rhethorically, if we just couldn't be happy there are more gay sports events. For that I got a nasty rant from you accusing me of slamming the "worker bees." So I'm going to reply in two sections, and then have done with it.

1.) Team Vancouver. Any idiot who has ever been on the board of anything knows that if there is a single goal the board works for, in this case, the events this summer; then people do a big push toward it, achieve it, and then reassess their lives. There is ALWAYS a big turn-over of board after the Games. By the way, you'll also find people will let their memberships lapse between games!! QUEL HORROR! Find a city team where this doesn't happen. What is it with you and manufacturing problems?

Team Vancouver is completely volunteer. If there's something NOT happening you'd like to see, put up or shut up. Did any of the sports involved in Calgary yearn for a Team Vanc shirt? What did they do about it? As for the web site, see note on "completely volunteer." Are you interested in volunteering to upgrade it? Know anybody?

Re the FGG. I don't know when the FGG was formed and really don't care much. Go for it and give a history lesson on the events leading up it its forming. Educate us. (I won't be in rebuttal. I'm done with this pathetic thread.) Was it not sometime around GG III, when the games went from being local SF to international? Wasn't that in, oh, Vancouver? (Rhetorical question--don't need an answer.) In any case, the FGG, as we know, is rabid about its "Brand." If there is a mistake and the FGG gives a rat's ass, they could address it. Or if it bothers you so much, you could write a letter and take it on as a cause. Enough.

There's no dirty laundry.

Will address issue # 2 in next reply.

Chuck,

Your lack of caring about the facts of the matter are exactly at the root of the problem we find ourselves in.

By taking an attitude akin to - the facts be damned, I'll believe what I want and I don't even need to find out what the facts are is the kind of thought pattern that the Montreal folks exploited.

As for the volunteers that have reassessed their lives - if they do not want to do anything, they should get out of the way. In this case, they don't get out of the way and they don't do anything.

If Team Vancouver wants to be an umbrella or a leader, they need to get out there doing something. T-shirts for the Calgary event would have been simple and easy but you turn it into an unneccesary task. You also support inaction because no one was demanding it. This is the lack of vision that has paralyzed Team Vancouver and I am not surprised to hear you spouting it.

Thank-you for announcing to the world that facts mean nothing to you!

Ken

PS My edit was to cut and paste the post by Chuck into the record in case he decides to withdraw it later.

FROM QUOTE FROM KEN MAC FEB ON OTHER THREAD.

I was speaking with a friend from Toronto on the weekend and we agreed that we both felt that the Chair of the OutEvent (I forget the over riding name as I am nore into Games ) is a good man with the best of intentions. We could only hope that he has done his homework. There are many people that simply take potshots at worker bees - you for instance - and it hampers the dilligence required to get the job done. The real questions never get answered while you spout off about letting it happen.

END QUOTE


RE: Worker Bees.


Strangely enough, unlike you, I am one. Was it you in Chicago horfing the team banners all over town, locating flagpoles, sourcing venues for the meet and greet, arranging food, scrambling for a chairs in the Soldier Field concourse because elderly members were touch and go making it in the heat? Was it you working the room at the Consulate touting gay sport (you would have been good at that -- where were you? Oh, back in Vancouver, no doubt complaining.)

Was it you in Montreal decorating the host hotel, handing out flyers on the street, horfing the banners all over town AGAIN?

So you didn't go to either event, but you still have lots to say. That's okay, not everyone can go; there's plenty to do at home. Was it you moving the scenery for the T-shirt fashion show and competition? Is it you loading and unloading the truck everytime that Pride Wall goes anywhere? No?

WOW. Simply saying I approve of more gay events translates magically into taking potshots at Worker Bees. WOW.

I'm not on the board of Team Vancouver anymore, and other than wishing them well, have no interest in the board of Team Vancouver.

So you talked to a guy in Toronto. Good for you. You have a talent for talk. I guess you feel your contribution is "asking the hard questions." That's okay. But don't confuse that as work.

Now. I'm done with this thread. Enjoy your bitch sessions.

Chuck,

To be clear, I have not taken any shots at the work you have done. What I have discussed here is that the current Board is not doing anything. How that translated into a shot at you is bizarre.

What I will say is that you readily demonstrate that you believe what you believe and will not be taken from that course - not even by the facts when they are presented to you. You simply choose to not believe what you do not want to believe,

I was hoping you would try to tear apart the facts I presented several postings ago which were the basis of my posting. Instead, you decided to find an angle to show the world that I am lazy and uninvolved.

Making up stuff to put on websites that is simply not true calls the integrity of the website and the organization publishing the website into question. In this case it is Team Vancouver. The current crop of Directors do not appear to be concerned with the truth - they make up whatever spin works for them.

The least I expect of them is that they confirm their self aggrandizing statemetns before they publish them!

I stand behind my statement in regards to Phil Ivers in Calgary. I have not spoken with him in well over a year and I have no idea how their event fared in the big picture. I certainly hope that the work that they did this year does not result in a financial failure that could threaten the future of the Western Cup.

Ken

My points on this subject were that 1) the $3 million wasn't intended to be funding, but a loan, 2) that $8 million in government subsidies on an event of $15 million is overkill (Quebec clearly agreed or their money would have been a grant). I do not disagree with government funds for LGBT cultural events, if there is enough money for things that are arguably more important to our community such as HIV/AIDS care, health care, retirement security for "unmarried" surviving spouses, etc. In the U.S. we do not support LGBT arts, sports, and culture enough that's for sure. But an $8 million subsidy for the 2006 Gay Games would have yielded widespread opposition from our own community. Money isn't unlimited - and the funds would have necessarily come from more important things.

But since you brought it up ... if you view the finances of Sydney, Amsterdam and Montreal, all in parts of the world where government funding is more acceptable, you have large deficits. In New York the loss was $300K (6% that of M2006). In Chicago, we are closing in on break-even. Clearly, government funds do not yield automatic positive results. Perhaps in M2006 case not having to work for their funds resulted in a lackadaisical response to managing expenses. Their post-deficit statements certainly indicated a sense of entitlement. Before you go trumpeting how wonderful the government subsidy model is, look at these examples plus the examples of U.S.-based Olympics versus others. Clearly there is a negative impact on the overall bottom line by an approach that relies upon taxpayer funding as opposed to user fees, corporate sponsorships, tickets and donations. Someone in economics and sociology can probably identify the exact causes better than I.



The fact that the OutGames was really a tourism event has been discussed here ad nauseum. Glad to see you finally agree. I agree with tourism promotion and LGBT tourism promotion in general. The comment I was making was one about "scope." Montreal Tourism probably continued to spend its own money during the OutGames run-up. Planning a tourism campaign that cost $8 to $10 million is very different than arguing after the fact that the subsidies generated tourism impact. If I were to plan a 3 or 4 year LGBT marketing campaign with $10 million, I'd have not spent some of that money on hockey pucks and dragon boats.

And while we're at it - Remember the stories going into the OutGames how the hotels were claiming they sold FEWER rooms that week than during a typical non OutGames week? Stories about vendors not being able to sell the merchandise they preordered (exaggerated numbers cost them lots of bucks). The sad thing about M2006 is that no one will ever really know the impact because they weren't ever held accountable for their gross exaggerations, and it's too late to do the kind of backwards research now. But what is clear to me, at least, is that the taxpayers OVERSPENT for something that UNDERPERORMED. Arguing generalities about government spending and tourism promotion doesn't cut it here.



Paper Tiger argument. The basis of this paragraph is that I said cities bid only for sports. I'ver never claimed that.



... And yet do you realize how often you cite information that has come from the very people you acknowledge lied to you? Why accept at face value that the $3 million wasn't a loan (you say the deficit is now down to just over $1 million)? Why continue to talk about the great tourism impact from M2006 (have your sales of packages to LGBT people going to Montreal from places other than Toronto gone up significantly?) You do it above again - "more than generated enough tax revenues and spin-off economic benefits," statements from the same people you say lie to you. You finally have stopped using the 10,250 or 12,000 registration figure but that took months and months. I just don't get it.



1) They should have spent less, by definition. 2) How much did they spent on marketing, anyway? Our cash budget was about $500K, plus $7.2 million in donated services. 3) The thesis that more Americans would have saved their financial ass just isn't true. By our calculations, other sources of revenue still subsidize each athlete registrations. Adding 8,000 more athletes is not a simple revenue stream. At $300 a pop, that might be $2.4 million in revenue, but but the costs would likely have been another $3 million. Add another 500 athletes and you can absorb most of them into existing infrastructure. Add another 8,000 and you have corresponding increases in all costs - supplies, security, medical, officials, medals, transit, labor, volunteers, etc. The advantages to the higher numbers come in the ability to sell more visiblity to sponsors (doesn't impact government numbers) and tickets from partners and friends that come with them. Their business model now seems somewhat doomed from the start because they tied neither expenses nor revenue to actual performance. The only adjustments they seem to have made were negative in financial impact - more discounting (how many people went for free to Montreal when all was said and done, I wonder), and more spending on labor and promotions (at least that's what you said).



The FGG was changing itself in response to Sydney and Amsterdam. Indeed, it was OPPOSITION to those changes and the impact they had on the grand Montreal plan that led Montreal ultimately to leave the bargaining table so spare us the "GLISA did us good" crap. GLISA evolved out of Montreal's desire to kill off the Gay Games and the FGG and they needed some kind of "good will" vehicle to disguise this. If ultimately some good comes of GLISA, that won't be because their spawning was holy.

It is true that the FGG has responded with accelerated change due to the M2006 situation. Chicago certainly had to change itself both in our 2nd bid application and on an ongoing basis during our 2.5 years of planning. But "responding valiantly to a competitive environment" is how this should be described. To attribute this success to Montreal and GLISA is like thanking the muggers for teaching you a lesson about never walking alone at night.

I think there's room for GLISA, but only if they abandon the quadrennial and stop trying to force a EuroGames model on parts of the world that may not need or want them. Also, frankly, I think Human Rights Conferences are better organized by human rights people, not by sports organizers. The coincidence of large numbers of sportsmen and women in a city doesn't make it automatically fertile for a Human Rights Conference. That was obvious in Montreal because they had to bring in all the activists - it wasn't the athletes attending. So the whole theory that they should happen together is based upon erroneous assumptions.

Also, we don't know the impact the conference had on M2006 finances. We know that they made a very big deal about all of the countries coming to the OutGames and very large numbers of those people were fully subsidized activists from various countries. The FGG's "White Paper" from 2003 suggests that by diverting resources to ancillary events such as pride, conference and parties, the deficits of Sydney, Amsterdam and New York were significantly exacerbated, not to mention sponsors got confused. This doesn't make pride, conferences or parties BAD. It means that they exert a negative impact on the business plan of the sports & cultural festival and are better undertaken at a different time of the year or completely and totally autonomously from the host organization.

Kevin

On the website of Tourisme Montréal there is a document on gay tourism and in it there is an estimate of the Outgames economic benefits.

"On estime les retombées économiques de l’organisation des jeux et des dépenses de ses visiteurs à environ 75 millions de dollars."
the economic benefits of organizing the games and the spending by the visitors at about 75 million dollars.

It's not to debate if this number is realistic or not and what they considered in the calculations (potential loss from hotels who had blocked too many rooms like a university residence that feared $230,000 loss one week before the event, public money, isolation of normal tourism that would have come that week, displacement of leisure spending from other event...) but it's what I call the "official" number. I read 75 million last november from Louise Roy in the newspaper but now it come from tourism authority.

Still in March 2006 the economic benefits were estimated at 170 millions. The director of tourism Montreal said it himself.
At around 8 minutes 45 sec. in the video, Reportage première partie on the page
Radio-Canada - 5 sur 5

At 7 minutes 15 sec. you can hear Roberto Mantaci speak (with a lovely accent). And in a futurology moment, at 9:15 Louise Roy is asked who is going to pay if there is a deficit for the Outgames, will it be public money? She answered they are a private non-profit and are totally responsible, and pressed again on who is going to pay if there are people who end not being paid, she says she's not forectating that 20 weeks before the event, she's not working on that hypothesis.

I hope there are some explanation given in the next few days. One month later, in April 2006 city of Montreal made a $1 million dollar loan for the "cash flow problems". So what went wrong/ when did someone realise financial goals would not be achieved/ what was done to reduce the debt/ what is the final breakdown of revenue source (sponsorship, subsidy, registrations, other revenues).

Well the $1 million is lost, as is the $3.2 million from the Quebec Provincial government. Today there is an article in the Montreal Gazette that talks about the plan to pay the creditors and there was a meeting this morning at 10 am. There is $200K left to pay about $1.33 million in bills. This is, of course, after the $3.2 million in taxpayer funds are absorbed. This is noted in the article but the $1 million from Montreal is not. These numbers suggest that the real loss was $5.53 million CAD (1 + 1.4 + 3.2) - about $230K more in losses than previously estimated at $5.3 million.

By agreeing to take 15 cents on the dollar, the creditors can avoid pushing Montreal 2006 into official bankruptcy which it is noted is better for the creditors since bankruptcy would likely result in zero cash for them out of the proceeds. They obviously hope that everyone agrees. Of course, one alternative for the creditors would be lawsuits against the deep pockets that may be liable for the claims of financial success that obviously gave the creditors confidence in providing goods and services without prepayment. Though claimed to be independent but clearly controlled by Montreal Tourism, I can imagine that suing Montreal Tourism or the City of Montreal would be a very attractive option for someone getting $30K instead of $200K - and getting that $30K 6 months from now. Montreal Tourism, obviously, has the cash to burn - why not burn it by paying back everyone at full price, or so those attracted to the legal option might think.

Then there's this quote from the letter Paul Uline and Mark Tewksbury sent to their creditors. "With this proposal, we would like to thank our partners, volunteers, employees, suppliers and friends for the tremendous success we all accomplished last summer." I suppose putting a positive spin on the financial elements to the bitter end is to be expected. The alternative would have been to admit culpability for the exaggeration, dishonesty, and subtrefuge. Still - one can feel the sarcasm dripping off the keyboard of the writer who previously had referred to the OutGames as a "debacle."

Actually Kevin you should have included the comment the writer of the story made prior to quoting the letter - where the writer states 'While addressing all the small fry hung out to dry, they added...." and then he goes on to quote from the letter.

So I would say not only was his keyboard dripping in sarcasm - he managed to get a justifiably sarcastic dig in - that surely nobody would miss.

Sounds bizarre to write in a proposal agreement to creditors : thanks to our suppliers. !!

I think the 1 million loan garantee from the city of Montreal is in the 3.2 million. "Governments last fall quietly swallowed a $3.2-million loss". Governements with an s so it's not only the Quebec government (and I'm not aware the federal government giving more subsidy or loan that first planned), so the 3.2 millions in my opinion is all the refundable loans that turned non-refundable.

As for creditors trying to sue Montreal or Tourism Montreal, even if they were behind the games, legally the Outgames committee was a private non-profit corporation. Tourism Montreal had one person on the board. I don't think there could be legal responsability. Since Tourism Montreal find the gay market so profitable maybe they have put in more money to help the games or help deal with some creditors.

The creditors accepted the agreement. Of the 74 that showed up, 69 were in favor.

The only tv coverage I have seen so far is on CBC news and it was small. Nothin much. They said the biggest problem was too few tickets sold. And the future of Outgames is now in doubt. (which I don't think it's true but too make sure that's what I heard I found it on the net. It's only the last broadcast (April 25), under On demand in the middle column, at 26 minutes 15 sec. at
News at 6 - CBC Montreal

They use the 5 million deficit number. The outgames are using $921,000.

No, the $1 million is clearly noted in various articles as an additional loan from Montreal Tourism. Last fall we learned that the Quebec government gave just over $3 million in an additional loan so the $3.2 million they're noting here is separate. Remember that the reporters don't follow this as closely as we do :-)

This new article - http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...0c-d7152d087cf0 - provides a microsm of how these people operated. Just a couple of statements, the one where Louise Roy is distributing information to the press in the hallway but not to the creditors, and the claim that they generated HALF A BILLION in media value, illustrate the entire approach to the whole event. It was shameful to mislead their suppliers into thinking that they would get paid because there would be a surplus (and in the U.S., I think there would have been legal liability), and it's now even more shameful to try and make PR "hay" out of the situation. And they still didn't learn anything about fudging numbers. The government administrator and the media are pointing out it's over $5 million in loss and Louise Roy is still claiming less than a million and wildly inflating media value. It's embarassing to the entire organization and to Montreal as a city. And her claim of half a billion in media value is an embarassment to quality PR people everywhere.

I guess one upside of the fact that no one outside Montreal really seems to care about this is that perhaps the overall LGBT sports movement won't be too seriously damaged. I don't know how this will affect Cologne (and, frankly, I don't give a damn how it affects Copenhagen - that event should be cancelled or turned into a EuroGames). But I'm sure that this will have a negative impact down the road somewhere. The next time the Gay Games are in the U.S.A. (or Canada), all of these articles will presumably still be available via google. The smart marketing people being approached for corporate sponsorships are going to make the Gay Games host explain in thorough detail what happened in Montreal and why their situation would be different. That is, the ones who bother to reply. Even getting people to respond to requests for cash can be tough - more so if they think you might be operating something that's not financially sound.

Kevin, from what I remember, last Fall the Quebec government said it forgave a 1.5 million loan and that made its total money contribution around $3 million.

With numbers flying around and constantly changing, it's difficult to have a clear financial picture. I was hoping for causes leading to the budget shortfall from Outgames when they would come out of hiding but that's not happening. It's trying to present the situation as good as possible (or least worst possible). Now we have a budget in the book of 14.8 million and another total budget of 28 million. It doesn't say what is in this 28 (mostly media exposure I understand, free Air Canada flights. It includes value of services so I'm wondering in which of the two numbers the the $2 million+ in goods and services from Montreal is put).

I'll do a translation of this article:
La presse - most creditors accepted

Most creditors acccepted the proposition
69 of 75 crediitors present have accepted the trustee's (syndic) proposal. Even though the games still owe 1.3 million to its creditors, the director of the organizing committee Louise Roy qualify the event of great success.

We are sorry for the creditors but we don't print money she says.
Then examples of creditors: Signa Groupe Marketing (157 684 $), Communications Sponsor Aim (119 862 $), Corus (68 000 $), Mark Tewksbury (1055 $), Navratilova Inc. (17 500 $), Palais des congrès de Montréal (35 626 $), Société de transport de Montréal (157 684 $).
(personal note: the convention center and public transport authority are publicly owned not private companies)

In interview, Louise Roy insists taxpayers will not be penalized. The press secretary of Montreal's mayor says that if the city is not on the creditor's list is because it didn't want to hurt a possible agreement with smaller creditors than the city. And she says the $1 million loan given by the city was never reimbursed.

The treasurer of the Outgames has hopes to recover $200,000 from payables. Asked about the source of the biggest amount he answers Labatt (brewery) and DMC Transat (travel company).

VP public affairs at Labatt: incredible! in fact, it's Outgames that owe us money. $45,000 of beer not paid. Labatt chose not to register on the creditor's list and include a 45,000 loss in its books.

The spokesman for DMC Transat says it doesn't owe money, all financial agreement were honoured.

A commercial printer says all of this has been a big fiasco.And he says he will recover 5 to 10% of it's $65,000. He asks why it's us the businesses that have to pay fo this instead of the governments? When you finance an event it seems to me you have to assume eventual losses.

What lesson learned from all this was asked to Roy: it's important governments are more involved in the organisation of an event, that they sit on the board and that they take responsability of financial results.

Roy demands things be put in perspective. An event that far-reaching that ends with more or less $1 million in deficit on a budget of $28 million, "it's a success".

---------

Here I see the spinning of number 1 million out of 28 million as deficit, when in reality it's at least 4 million out of 14.8 million so something like 30% in deficit. And from someone who didn't want too much FGG oversight, now she suggests more governement oversight in the event organisation. Maybe all events should be nationalize?

There is also this from Canadian press on Le Journal de Montréal website:
la direction s'entend avec les créanciers

agreement with 309 creditors still unpaid after 8 months. deficit of $921,000. without agreement Outgames would have to declre bankrupty.
$500 and less paid in full. between 500 and 2,500 a choice between take $500 or join the third group that will be paid between 15 and 20% of debt.

600,000 still owed to Outgames mainly refunds (note: rebate? beer or travel refunds?)
Outgames treasurer estimates to recuperate around 400,000$ of this sum. It's with this anticipated number that the final deficit is put at 921,000.

According to Outgames data, budget was $14.8 million. With services offered total cost was $28.3 million, paid 26% by the public sector.
--------

In the article above I note the 26% is on 28 million. There is more than 7 million coming from public sector, on the 14.8 million it's something around 50%.

At this moment the deficit is still 1.3 million (not counting the forgiven loans).

Another link, from tv (if you miss seeing Roy she appears in the video, to start it click camera below image)
l'organsiation évite la faillite - LCN

Games were not a crowd success nor an accounting success. Organissation has around 1 million deficit. Leaves behind 308 dreditors including Cirque du Soleil, Olympic Stadium, Montreal public transit.

Ex-Outgames CEO Roy states games generated $96.4 million economic spin-offs and governements loses nothing in this experience.

I have no clue what this 96.4 million represents. The loses nothing argument is gov benefited for more than it put in I guess, but it had to put in more that resulted in much less than forecasted.

In the video Roy says Outgames created 110 jobs, gathered up $28 million (the so-called total budget number), governments put in 25% of that.

The trustee is afraid they'll have to go to court to collect money due to Outgames for instance from Labatt and Transat. There is someonething strange... Outgames created a financial mess and it will be the one suing others.

Again here the tactic of using 28 million as a total budget to make other numbers smaller, and the contribution of governments. Same strategy as with the number of participants. When they didn't make the 16,000 number to make it surpass it they added volunteers, officials, conference speakers to arrive at 18,000 people in the final press release. The economic benefite of $96.4 millions looks like an inflated number. Even Tourism Montreal had estimate of $75 million and underestimation of economic impact rarely happens, quite the contrary, it's probably a top estimate.

I'm still left with not many answers on what items of revenues or spending that were the causes of the financial problems.

As reported last fall, the minister of Quebec Province said that they'd put in $3+ million as a loan and that Montreal had additionally provided a $1+ mllion loan which was subsequently forgiven. Later above you talk about how the $1+ million was not included on the books because they didn't want to harm the other creditors ability to recover something. Back then there was also talk of $2.2 million in payables and about $800K in receivables. Added together (3 + 1 + 2.2 minus .8 and you get $5.4 million in losses - the figure that has been used in the media in Montreal). The recent articles seem to suggest that the actual figure is a small bit worse - perhaps $5.6.

One thing should be clear from all of the various numbers flying about and that the figure that seems best to suit Ms. Roy at the time she is asked is the one that she will use, just like the registration totals, country totals, tourism totals, economic impact, attendance totals and "final surplus" fiigures seem to just fly out of her mouth without any relation to accuracy. As the CEO of the organization, she has demonstrated a gross inability to manage the organization's financial matters. She has a vested interest in the way that the numbers are reported and most of what she claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

The finances of an event of this size with a cash and in-kind budget this large requires a team of qualified people to manage. Once mismanaged (as this clearly was), there would be a need for finance people to review the books and do a post-mortem. Post-event, I would surmise that the team of people who were no longer being paid likely stopped doing much financial work and they probably never had many volunteers in that area. It's quite probably that a final true result will never be known because the professional service fees required to assess the situation would eat up the cash balance. Clearly there doesn't seem to be the political will to fund such an activity.

It is interesting to see Ms. Roy now spointing fingers at the government. No matter what total budget you believe, the amount of government subisides for the Montreal OutGames dwarf any other government subidies for any other gay event in history. And yet STILL they lost vast sums of money and are leaving vendors and suppliers holding the bag. The notion that the way to have avoided the debacle was MORE subsidies merely demonstrates the weakness of the financial controls and their entire business model.

"If only the government had supported us more" as an excuse for their mismanagement does a disservice to the government agencies that obviously contributed much more than they intended to. But it's hard to feel sorry for them. If they invested that much money into this event without ensuring that the money was being spent wisely, then they have themselves largely to blame.

Here are the financial statements of the Montreal Outgames at the end of year 2005 (the event was in 2006)

Montreal Outgames financial statement year 2005

They had to report every year to at least one department of the Quebec government every year to get the next year's portion of the grant. To this date that department hasn't received financial statements for 2006.