I am intrigued by the following issue after reading the vitriolic rhetoric on this thread:

There seems to be a very genuine "schism" as noted earlier between the Americans and "the rest of the world" - an "us vs. them" divide that goes well beyond whether Montreal or Chicago is better equipped to handle the games. This is no longer an issue of whether non-Americans trust the FGG or whether Montreal has the credibility to run and sustain a new gay sports movement. I think there exists an extremely popular school of thought outside the US that America should be punished vis-a-vis the FGG for all the recent international blunders of the Bush administration. The FGG is for all intents and purposes, a US-dominated entity. Whether this needs to be changed is a discussion for another time and place, not on the eve of their showcase event. As such, it is apparently a genuine and legitimate target to many.

I think there are those in Montreal (not all, just some) that hope to cash in on the anti-Americanism that is prevalent in the world due to opposition to the current White House occupant. RV2006 is being seen as the anti-American games - the place for the world to collectively flip the bird at the US.

In my own opinion, this only hurts the chances of preventing anti-gay legislation from being passed in the US due to the extremely well-developed "circle the wagons" mentality of the Americans, but again, an issue for another place and time.

Therefore, I pose the following question. If a Kerry administration takes office next January and extends total US governmental support to the Gay Games and assuming Richard Daley's City of Chicago administration also comes through along with Rod Blagojevich's Illinois, will anti-Americanism subside enough and in time to ensure a good turnout in Chicago?

What then of Montreal and the work the Quebecois have put in thus far? I certainly don't bear them any ill-will and do genuinely wish to see them succeed. Even if for nothing else, I don't want to see those who were against gay marriages in Canada to get yet another crutch to stand on in case RV2006 fails.

I for one am already eagerly awaiting the end of both events so we can all look forward to a unified event in 2010. The degeneration of this "discussion" into sophomoric name-calling and geographic divisions is obscene in and of itself. I don't think the gay sports movement needs any more high-profile failures to accumulate, in Chicago or Montreal.

I look forward to reading any responses to the above questions, especially from non-Americans who feel as though the US should not be rewarded with the Gay Games for:

a) The FGG's perceived monolithic nature, and
The Bush administration's faults.

Thanks for reading.

- Bhuttu Mathews
Chicago, IL

Ok, the conspiracy theory has gone a bit far. I'm going to Montreal because:
every experience I've had at various Gay Games - dating back to 1990 when my parents came to see me swim here in Vancouver - was provided by the host city;
What the FGG was asking for was not something i would have agreed to in any of my various positions, including chair, of non-profit boards;
The decision to hold a competing event was unsound as I (and many others) don't appreciate being forced to choose.

This has nothing to do with BUSH!

Don

Don - I'm confused - what was the FGG asking for from you? Or are you referring to what the FGG asked for from Montreal? Who have you asked about that subject, other than the M2006 folks?

Kevin,

I was referring to what the Federation was asking of Montreal. I've read most if not all of the press releases of both organizations.

Don

I've read the press releases also. I've also read the actual License Agreement and voted for our organization to sign it. There's nothing in the agreement that is out of theordinary or "controlling" or any of the other scurrilous terms that have been used to describe it. I don't know what you mean about experience with nonprofit boards but I've chaired or been executive director of boards for 15 years and I'm pretty confident that if you saw the actual document, you'd be comfortable signing it also. Or as our attorney's partners put it when asked to review the document "This is a standard trademark contract for an event like this. Any of our junior associates could do the review your client needs."

I'd say that the moral of the story is to not believe all the press releases that you read ... but since I'm the one drafting press releases for Chicago, and I want you to read them ... I'll just say "be careful what you read in a press release."

Sorry Kevin, but Chicago doesn't have $4 million dollars of government money in it (although I hope that changes!!!) Giving others a veto on how that money is spent (what was it I read that the Federation called it...I think it was "robust oversite" but don't quote me --PLEASE!") anyway, it was never going to fly.

Also, the two groups were just not getting ANYWHERE in terms of interpersonal dynamics and the buck always stops somewhere. Chicago has a good working relationship with the FGG and a similar (if not close to exactly the same) vision. If you don't disagree, then the issue of control isn't all that important.

Even though I was head of one of the other bidding organizations throughout the past four years, I work for a professional fundraising copmany that specializes in special event planning/production.

Whenever a group agrees to produce an event for an organization they become a subcontractor. The owner has every right to request financial oversight of their subcontractor, whether it's the Olymnpics, the Gay Games, a charity ball, a bingo tournament, whatever. The FGG wanted to exercise their right because they had learned the hard way by not exercising that right previously. maybe it was a naive trust on their part, or a lack of knowing how to run their business properly.

I have interacted with all these people through 3 of the 4 last Annual Meetings, the Sydney Gay Games, the Boston Conference, two IGLA championships (where FGG and RV06 had full representation), email exchanges during the original bidding process and interacting on committees via email thes past four years.

From what I can gather, the difference is as you state - a difference in the core philosophy. And that core philosophy was about how the money should be spent and when. From what I can tell, Montreal wanted to be able to spend that money during the process as they saw fit (salaries, travel, etc.) while the FGG wanted to conserve as much as possible so there would be funds at the end of the event for BOTH groups to share.

No doubt RV06 is going to spend lavishly to produce an incredible event. But the FGG doesn't want lavish - they want modest spending with the opportunity to have a profit that can be put back into furthering the mission of the Gay Games.

RV was only going to be responsible for one Gay GAmes. The FGG has the task of being responsible for the longevity of the Gay GAmes, and making sure it adheres to the original mission as Tom and the rest of set out to do back in 1982 (OK, he started it in 1981; I wasn't on board until about 6-7 months later)

The difference is in the money. And you're right - Chicago is approaching it with the mindsset of ensuring the long-term financial health of the Gay Games. Keep in mind, Chicago Frontrunner Peg Grey (whom I've known since 1986) was the first Female Co-President of the FGG. Although she may not have been as active in their bid efforts these past few months, years, most everyone else I have met on the CGI team shares much of her spirit and approach to the Gay Games and their impact on the community. And that spirit was in place long before non-athletes smelled the potential profit from this event.

Well, Chuck, the amount of money raised by Montreal since JoBurg in Nov of 2001 vs. the amount of money raised by Chicago since March 2 doesn't really seem to be a fair comparison of potential success ... and it wasn't Don's comment, anyway, right? He was commenting on what the FGG was asking of Montreal - but my point was that he hadn't read the actual document, just the press releases.

As to "veto" and "robust oversight" - again, I've read and negotiated the License Agreement and while I'd use the latter phrase, I'd never use the former. As you can imagine, after reading all the press releases flying about the FGG and the LA we were very concerned about the nature of the document. It's just not there. We thought "hmmm - maybe we just don't understand the language," so we asked our attorneys the same thing. Again, they said "uh, no, it's appropriate for this type of event." The procedures for budget reporting and implementing changes to the Gay Games VII plan are easy to understand, practical to implement, and ... frankly ... exactly what I would have expected from an organization seeking to end a series of financial losses.

But you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to relationships and trust. Since my work with the FGG in 1999, I've found the Board and Executive Committee to be honorable and trustworthy people. Each individuals has his perks, and I've certainly not agreed with everything they've done, but I've always felt there was honesty and transparency exhibited constantly. They have some of the strictest codes of conduct that I've seen in the nonprofit world ... sometimes bogging them down a bit. But I trust that the group is working in the best interests of their organization, the GLBT sports community and the athletes. I'm glad they are there and I will continue to work hard to strengthen them.

I don't think you can draw a conclusion on issues like this from just the press releases. They say the opposite thing from each other. You can only draw a conclusion from the press releases if you give credibility to one side over the other for reasons unrelated to the press releases.

Kevin Boyer
Chicago Games, Inc.
ChicagoGamesInc.org