Brian Thornton of Spangle, a gay magazine in Cleveland, has done a great job in analyzing the three bidding cities for the 2014 Gay Games — Boston, Cleveland and Washington DC. The winner will be chosen in September and Thornton’s conclusion is that it’s wide open. He also offers advice to all three bidding cities:
Boston: Prove your city is welcoming, and not unfriendly as is sometimes perceived outside the region. Prove your games can be affordable to all. Prove your focus is on athletics (there are a lot of ancillary things planned in your bid).
Cleveland: Prove you have the infrastructure (both people and resources) to pull this off. Prove the location will be a draw to actually get participants to care about coming. Prove the region’s dismal economy can support the funding you need.
D.C.: Prove your plan will get things done on time. (For instance, not hiring a development director until 2011? That seems late.) Prove your venues are not too spread out with the notorious D.C. traffic and metro system. Prove you can be affordable.
I am not sure what he means by Boston being “unfriendly.” I know Patriot and Red Sox fans are obnoxious, but I have always enjoyed my trips to Boston. Thornton does a nice job of breaking down various categories to determine which city has an edge.
In reviewing the bids I was surprised to see that DC was the only city of the three that will not have flag football (I have played flag football at the 1990, 1994 and 2006 Gay Games). That’s a big omission given the rapid growth of the sport, and the fact that the 2009 Gay Bowl will be held in DC. Flag football should be a mandatory sport anytime the Gay Games are held in the U.S.
My only advice to the Federation of Gay Games, which will decide this — pick the bid that makes the most economic sense and doesn’t have its budget dependent on unrealistic turnout or sponsor projections.
on Jul 21st, 2009 at 4:54 AM
It is disappointing that all three candidate cities for 2014 are from a single country , especially since that country held the games as recently as 2006 . Were there really no other applicants from other countries . It makes the Federation of Gay Games seem very insular and parochial .
Lets hope that 2018 sees bidding from a bigger variety of cities and countries . Otherwise the Gay Games will risk marginalising itself by being seen as the American Gay Games , especially as there is still some lingering international resentment about the ‘theft’ of the 2006 games which had been awarded to Montréal and then were reassigned to Chicago under less than transparent circumstances .
I still wish good luck to whichever city wins the bid – but hope that next time there will be a more representative selection of cities as finalists .
on Jul 21st, 2009 at 12:31 PM
This thread really should be about the bidding cities for 2014 and the positive things that they have to offer for the ninth edition of the Gay Games. But right off the bat someone makes it a half empty glass of water instead of half full.
The gossipy criticism of the FGG is not warranted. Since 1993 the Federation has conducted an open bidding process and groups decide among themselves whether to enter the bidding and in which quadrennium. No U.S. groups entered the bidding in 2005, won by Cologne, and this time, for whatever reason, no non-U.S. cities entered the bidding. The FGG will not know until sometime in 2012 which city groups are interested in bidding in 2013 for the 2018 Gay Games X. If that makes the FGG appear parochial to some, well those “some” would really do better to educate themselves and stop tossing around such casual criticisms. There is a wealth of information about the Gay Games site selection process on the FGG website and annual meetings continue to be open to the public.
The “lack of transparency” issue. Precisely to show its consituency as much transparency as possible, within a mere three weeks after Montreal 2006 walked out of contract negotiations with the Federation, the FGG posted on its website letters to the public from the co-presidents and a detailed timeline of the 2001 bidding process and negotiations with Montreal 2006. These documents have been nitpicked by a few people understandably upset about what happened, but to date no one has disproved the facts. Here are the links to the letter and timeline in English and the letter in French:
http://www.gaygames.com/en/media/releases/2003/PR-Release-20031129.pdf
http://www.gaygames.com/en/media/releases/2003/PR-Release-20031128fr.pdf
FGG board members have been actively engaged with clarifying matters further on Outsports’ invaluable message boards. Now, please, take further discussion of the split with Montreal or FGG v. GLISA-related issues back to the message boards and let any other comments below be about the three Gay Games candidate cities for 2014 and the substance of their bids.
- Charlie Carson, FGG board 1994-2007
on Jul 21st, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Andrew:
It was 12 years between NYC in 1994 and Chicago in 2006.
Counting 2014, this will make 4 of the last 6 Gay Games held OUTSIDE the U.S. since the event moved from its San Francisco birthplace.
Not sure you have a valid point.
on Jul 21st, 2009 at 1:30 PM
I agree with Charlie. While the FGG can encourage cities to bid, they can’t control who does and who doesn’t. You can complain about their final decisions, you can wish votes had gone certain ways, you can wonder why members vote a certain way, but the process itself does seem pretty transparent. And it’s seemed to me that the votes I’ve been privy to (Montreal, then Chicago, then Koln) have been on the up-and-up. I have certainly seen no reason to believe the process is inherently flawed from a procedural standpoint.
And remember: The Chicago Gay Games were originally supposed to be in Montreal (Canada), which the FGG had chosen ahead of Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles. I believe the only two cities to bid after Montreal pulled out were Chicago and Los Angeles; Should they have awarded it to a city that didn’t bid? “Hey Barcelona, congratulations! We’ve chosen you as the next Gay Games host. I hope you want to host us!” Hardly.
on Jul 21st, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Andrew Ewen’s post angered me knowing what I know. It is so gutless and inaccurate a criticism. What has he done for the GayGames Movement to be making such a criticism without research?
First the financial realities:
With the 8th. iteration of the GayGames coming up you need to look at what the IOC/Olympics already knows… You do not make $$ or even break even when you leave the US.
Of the past Olympics, it is no secret they come back to Los Angeles to recharge their $$ and PR. It is just a fact of business. It is not to say they should not take risks and go with tough bid sites, it is their mission to do so.
Ditto with the GayGames. Every cycle every bidding city knows the kumbaya ‘handwriting on the wall’. The Olympics and the GayGames cannot always be in ‘OutReach Mode’.
Of the past last 7 GayGames, San Francisco made $$ in 1982 & 1986, NY’94 lost a pittance, and Chicago broke even. That means 4 of the last 7 GayGames held in the US since 1982 more than broke even if you balance it out. That is impressive record given the ~25k total participants.
Compare that to the $$ losses incurred by Non US GayGames Vancouver, Amsterdam, and Sydney in total, and their comparable ~28k total particpants. It really makes the Olympics and GayGames point about ‘motivation alternation’ in choosing bid cities and ‘Outreach Goals’. It is not an unacceptable solution.
I expect GGs8 Koeln to be an unqualified success based upon my organizing experience since GGs1 and the ‘Buzz’ I am seeing in San Francisco & Wrestling. In contrast, I could not even give away 2 full wrestling scholarships to CopenHagen’s World OutGames (WOGs2) because of ‘critical mass’ issues.
Overall it has been an amazingly successful GayGames record. The total GayGames losses in 7 past GayGames still does not even reach HALF of Montreal’s losses in a single WOG!
Another important point is that the GayGames have always been run BY the ATHLETES FOR the ATHLETES. Not even the Olympics can say that. I expect the same commitment to mission from Cleveland, Boston, or DC.
But I find it hard to swallow another WOGs bid foisted by the FABULOUS PEOPLE of the Travel & Hotel conglomerates who are soon to be disembarking from their luxury cruises in CopenHagen to celebrate WOGs2. These are the people who are conspiring with GLISA to put on their Human Rights conferences and huge Arts & Cultural festivals on the backs of the ATHLETIC registrations (Copenhagen’s registration as a WOGs2 was double that of 2007 Antwerp EuroGames).
Read the Secretariat CopenHagen Report that just came out. It is an incredibly accurate honest evaluation of the registration ‘critical mass’ theory I have been pushing. The now take the original athletic model, and split in thirds…. sports, culture, and now human rights. A nice sounding ‘buzz word’, but guess who pays the bulk of the registrations.
When you organize for GLBT sports as I have for 25 years, you know that your teams cannot afford the Baltic cruise with a few rounds of tennis thrown in after the harbor wine & cheese party. The GayGames has a very strong mission to fulfill, and it may not always be as FABULOUS as it could be, but knowing the changes GayGames has made in the lives of athletes I have coached, I cannot support the shell that is GLISA. There is no athletic ‘There There’ . No athletic research, no athletic policy development, etc.. GayGames is not the Olympics, it is better, and it needs its GLBT sports organizations to be heavily involved.
I would ask Andrew Ewen & GLISA WOGs why always safe Gay Ghettos? 3 World OutGames (WOGs): Montreal, CopenHagen, and now Antwerp… Where is the risk in usurping a very successful EuroGames model? It looks like Copenhagen is not even going to reach Antwerp’s 2007 or Barcelona’s 2008 EuroGames numbers! Is Eastern European outreach just lipservice? BTW, one of our declined CopenHagen wrestling shcolarships was a Croatian
on Jul 21st, 2009 at 10:30 PM
my my , haven’t I touched a nerve . It appears that any (mild) criticism is to be attacked ( together with the critic) . Perhaps it should have been made clear that comments were only to be made if they prasied the good Gay Games to the skies and criticised the evil Outgames . Now that the rules have been clearly established I will excuse myself for having unwittingly breached them and only make comments in open forums in future .
on Jul 21st, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Andrew:
You evaded my criticism of what you wrote, namely that even including 2014, four of the last six GG will have been held outside the U.S., so how can you dub them the “American games?” The other commenters can speak for themselves.
on Jul 21st, 2009 at 11:09 PM
‘My my are’nt we the sensitive one caught with our pants down…. Criticism is -always-very welcome. It will help us all. But it is the domain of the coward to throw out lies, run away and hide, and then claim victim when caught. If you are not willing to engage in proper debate with FACTS instead of FEELINGS, then please do refrain from posting nonsense. It will be attacked here and anywhere else it is posted.
on Jul 22nd, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Andrew, your comments were simply uneducated. Don’t play the victim when you’re the fool. If you want to comment and attack people, bring TRUE facts. Our retort to your post had nothing to do with whether you were criticizing the Gay Games or praising them – if anyone uses such poor logic in their comments on Outsports, people will set them straight. So to speak.
on Jul 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 AM
I had determined to stay out of this thread due to the number of personal attacks – it is curious that the last poster has accused me of attacking people while ignoring people who have chosen to make personal attacks – I have not called anyone ‘gutless’ I have not accused anyone of ‘cowardly behaviour’ and I have not called any of the other posters a ‘fool’ – so who exactly is guilty of making personal attacks on this thread – certainly not I .
Since you have labelled me ‘uneducated’ please accept the challenge and ‘educate’ me . What is the Federation doing to encourage diversity in applications ? Why are they not getting applications from Paris , Rio , Cape Town , Tokyo , Madrid , Lisbon etc ?
I am sure that someone will give me the simplistic answer ‘ because they chose not to apply’.
Let me pose you a hypothetical question , you are looking for a company to do extensive work with , and wanting to ensure that you are supporting the ‘right sort of business’ you carefully vet the candidates EEO policies . Finding a company that you are happy with , you award them the contract , at the end of the year you and your partner are invited to the companies end of year celebration where you cannot help but notice that everyone else is white and heterosexual , on asking where the diversity is in the company you are told ‘ Everyone is welcome to apply , but for some reason they dont’ Would you just accept that on face value , or would you challenge and ask ‘Why do you think you are not getting applications from GLTB , persons of colour , people with disabilities etc ?’
So , I am asking , and hoping to get a serious respectful answer rather than the rude ones I have received so far “why do you think that the Gay Games failed to get diversity in their candidates for 2014? ” “What steps do you think the Gay Games should take in order to ensure that other cities are encouraged to apply” ? .
I went to the SYD Gay Games , the only ones so far I have been able to afford to travel to , and enjoyed them immensely , but I would still have been very disappointed if the only applicants for the 2010 games had been Melbourne , Brisbane and Perth – not because I am anti-Australian , but because there are so many other countries who havent held them yet that it seems very unfair to again award them to the same country so quickly .
So , is anyone going to accept the challenge and look at my question ? or will you stick to personal attacks because they are easier ?
on Jul 22nd, 2009 at 7:54 AM
At the risk of going back to the original topic, I wanted to comment on Boston’s bid.
I’ve been living in Cambridge for the past 3 years, and over the last 2 years have been making efforts at developing a new water polo team here. I was also heavily involved in the LA2006 bid, and traveled to Johannesburg for the site selection meeting in 2001. Former IGLA Co-Pres where I helped the local hosts oversee the water polo tournament at the Sydney games, attended Amsterdam and Chicago games also, etc…
Anyway, not once have I heard from anyone at Boston 2014 about water polo or getting in touch with pools in the area. I agree with the articles’s assessment that the Boston bid seems more focused on ancillary goals, rather than athletics. The minds behind the bid are a travel / tourism business, as evidenced by the original bid website which was hosted under their business site. Their first big community event hasn’t even happened yet (a little late to rally the troops?).
I think Boston has a great infrastructure and a very sports-minded community to make for a great Gay Games, but I’m not impressed with what little I’ve seen in the local athletics community from the people at top running this particular bid.
My $0.02
on Jul 22nd, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Andrew.
Please note that there were no bidders for WOG 1, there was only one bidder for WOG2 (northern European) and there was only one bidder for WOG3 (again, Northern European). Not much diversity. By contrast, Gay Games bidders through the years have come from Africa, Australia, North America and Europe.
J’berg had a very strong bid in 2005 for the 2010 GG. There was a great deal of sentiment to go there. There were identified needs to be addressed in terms of building up infrastructure, and during this cycle resources in South Africa are focused on building of stadiums and preparing for the World Cup. Having to build a Gay Games there from scratch and recruit volunteers was going to be especially difficult in 2010 (a factor I am sure many of the FGG voters had in mind in 2005), and the focus of efforts there currently would have made a bid difficult for supporters to organize a bid this year. But that hardly means South Africa had disappeared from the scene (J’berg has an organization that is a voting member of the FGG and the FGG held its annual meeting in 2007 in Cape Town), teams and athletes from Africa have benefitted from scholarship support from the FGG, and I think it is far better than even money than we can expect a bid from South Africa in the next cycle or two.
As far as touching a nerve, I think your selection of such a snapshot of one bidding cycle and omitting the rest of the entire history of the Gay Games, which did so much to help create the clubs in Europe, Africa, Australia and South America and the international organizations that sanction the sports for the LGBT community; and the inaccurate and defamatory portrayal of the negotiating process for the 2006 Gay Games as ‘theft’ is certainly ample enough trigger to set off understandably human reactions in journalists such as Cyd and Jim who strive to present as much information for the LGBT sports community as they can and two sports activists as Charlie and Gene who have each dedicated more than two decades of their personal time and resources to volunteer behind the scenes and bring sports into the lives of thousands of LGBT want-to-be athletes.
And, as has been pointed out, there are threads on this web site devoted to the discussion of future cycles, direction of LGBT sports. This is not the thread.
Carl, thank you for your comment. I think it is worth considerably more than 2 cents, even i this economy.
As one of the people who will be voting in September on the bids, I have been spending hours reading through the documents, writing internal analyses, presenting questions to the bidders through several cycles of inquiry, and am looking forward to the in-person presentations and the reports from the site visits. The ‘sports disconnect’ you mention is one of the things I always give very, very heavy weight to when I evaluate bids.
on Jul 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Thanks for your feedback Roger , I have tried searching for the thread you mentioned but cannot find it – would you have a link so that I can post in the appropriate forum rather than continuing in this one .
regards
Andrew
on Jul 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 PM
One is here on Outsports:
http://www.outsports.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=41157
Another is new: the Future of LGBT Sports site:
http://lgbtsportsfuture.wordpress.com/
on Jul 24th, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Those of you who follow these posts regularly know Gene often cites ‘lazy’ journalists for spreading misinformation and sustaining myths. I think ‘sloppiness’ should fit in there as well.
Latest example of a well-meaning article that gets things wrong is in the Cleveland Plain Dealer which while bringing good attention to the local bid overstates the event and incorrectly maligns cities. The story is at
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2009/07/cleveland_one_of_three_finalis.html
In it, reporter says there were originally 40 bidders (to the best of my knowledge, there were 14 cities that sent expressions of interest, 10 did not submit applications as the last FGG annual meeting, and Miami withdrew afterward) and asks what Cleveland has that ‘rejected cities such as London and Buenos Aires don’t? Of course, they were not rejected.
The article then quotes the bid organizer as saying, “The games draw 20,000 participants and draws up to 500,000 people total over 10 days. The selection committee sees Cleveland as a place where you can step out of your hotel and walk to an event.”
The Games have drawn as much as 10-13,000 in any given year since 1994 and have never claimed to draw anywhere near 500,000 spectators.
on Jul 25th, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Thank You Carl Anhalt..
Your observations are exactly my gut reaction to Boston’s bid thus far knowing what I know of the city’s LGBT sports scene. For those of us who have been through many site selection cycles your comments are -exactly- what I look for.
My first site selection as a voting delegate for WWB was in DC when we chose Amsterdam ’98. Since that time I have I have become more cynical about bids that originate with tourism boards, travel agents, and Pride organizations (the ‘Borg’). It is the primary reason I never voted for Montreal in both of their bids (2002 and 2006). I always want to take a shower after talking to these ‘Borg’ people. Their lack of candor, their misplaced focus, and their downright ignorance about what GayGames are all about is just astounding.
I would recommend ATHLETES from DC, Boston, and Cleveland to get on these blogs and start telling us their ATHLETIC stories so we can can get a better feel for the bid, and do accurate fact checking. Don’t expect the GLBT media to do it, they are too lazy, primarily non Athletic in their ‘bias’, and they are literally in bed with the ‘Borg’.
Another of my pet peeves are these overhyped ‘academic conferences’.. This is all redundant ‘make work’ nonsense. I -expect- academics to be pro LGBT. They are preaching to the choir. But any athlete in his right mind who spends $2k to compete in a GayGames wants to go see other events or play tourista on their days off. Athlete regtistrants don’t want (or need) to sit through a rehash of academic victim politics at a university.
Why WOGs features these conferences is not a mystery. They can increase their registration numbers with non Athletes who want a political Pride forum/experience. Copenhagen has a 4k/1k split. It is not a problem until you analyze where the emphasis, $$, and marketing/PR are being spent. Don’t take my word for it, read their marketing/PR. The conferences are balanced on the backs of higher registration fees for athletes. Why this ass-backwards focus?
You can take the all the proclamations from these WOGs conferences, put them side by side, and they all say the same thing repetitively, and there never seems to be any progress (because the presenters would be out of a job). Take all that emphasis, and sponsor a soccer team from South America, and you will have accomplished far more than just constantly talking about it.
The power of an event like the GayGames is that is put on by Athletes for Athletes. The LGBT political payoff is in the smashing of stereotypes and the building of coalitions with the mainstream sports world. This has proven to be far more effective than any of these conferences.
So bid cities beware of short shrifting the Athletic component… I would strongly suggest them to read the still accurate and powerful ‘Image of the GayGames’ whitepaper from 2003. It is more appropos today than ever: http://lgbtsportsfuture.wordpress.com/report-archive/2003-image-of-gay-games/
on Aug 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 PM
I like all three cities that are bidding and think that Boston IS friendly. One comment I heard in Amsterdam is whether DC is nuts for proposing that the Games be held in August. But I suppose that if the professional athletes can hold games in Seoul and Atlanta in the summer, so can we amateurs.
About the issue that Mr. Ewen tried to raise, it was my understanding (perhaps an incorrect one) that FGG “allowed” folks to know which continent they wanted to focus on. Since it’s a private entity, there’s hardly anything wrong with that but – if true – it can mislead people when it is hidden. In other words, if it’s true, just let people know openly. If it’s not true, I apologize for my misunderstanding.
BTW, I participated in the Games in Vancouver, New York (missed Amsterdam, darn it), Sydney, Montréal, and Copenhagen. The ONLY reason I went to Montréal instead of Chicago was that I had planned on that city since Sydney and no squabble was going to dissuade me. I have enjoyed them all and finally got a medal in Copenhagen by having outlived most of my competition.
I think that most of us who are amateur athletes are interested in the Games because they offer us a chance to be with other gay athletes and we truly do not like the bickering. Were we able to lock GLISA and FGG in a room with no bathroom and no food and not let them out until they found a way to merge or provide each other support, I think most of us would relish the opportunity. One of the Londoners told me his group was staying away from both Games in Europe because they were sick of the fight.
I hope to see my cohorts in Cologne. Are any of you going?
on Aug 6th, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Zeyev wrote: “About the issue that Mr. Ewen tried to raise, it was my understanding (perhaps an incorrect one) that FGG “allowed” folks to know which continent they wanted to focus on. Since it’s a private entity, there’s hardly anything wrong with that but – if true – it can mislead people when it is hidden. In other words, if it’s true, just let people know openly. If it’s not true, I apologize for my misunderstanding.”
It’s not true. But since so many people seem to believe that the FGG “wants” to go to a particular part of the world each time, maybe the FGG needs to make louder its message (which it gives each time bidding is announced) that it welcomes bids from around the world.
As to the original post… leaving aside the issue of Outgames, and leaving aside your focus on a single bidding cycle rather than the entire history of Gay Games bidding (I know, that’s leaving aside alot), just how does having bidders in a given cycle from more than one country improve diversity? The Gay Games can only be held in one country in each cycle.
And frankly, I would rather have a quality bid from anywhere in the world that comes from talented motivated people rather than have to hold hands and beg or entice a bidder from a particular place simply because we want some sort of geographic diversity among bidders in a cycle.
on May 20th, 2010 at 12:58 AM
Okay, we have been exhorted early in this comment section, to steer away from making criticisms of previous events/games and to rather be positive. Whilst this is an admirable maxim to aspire to, one cannot help but comment on the missives that have followed. There have been comments denegrating Andrew Ewan and his call for transparency in the bidding process. And, I would tend to agree that there has not been any “rigging” of the selection process for host cities. However, in later comments , the discussion started to revolve around how successful the Games have been when held on American soil. And that “returning” the Games to America, always ensures that there is no loss incurred. Well, perhaps that is in no small way due to the large gay population base that can be drawn upon when an American city is the host. Of course, Europe does have a larger population than that of the US, but it can be argued that climate and cultural differences tend to favour a greater participatory group from the latter. On the other hand, when the Games are held in a non-US destination, there are many from that large culturaly disposed sporting group, who cannot or do not make the trip abroad due to financial reasons. This means that those Games in non – US cities can struggle to get numbers and therefore incur subsequent lossses.
In the case of Montreal in 2006, it became quite obvious to me as a participant, that it was the non-US gathering of gay athletes that year. The US athletes had understandably supported their own Gay Games in Chicago. I am not going to enter into any discussion here as to the correctness or otherwise of the FGG’s decision to rescind the awarding of the 2006 event to Montreal. Or it’s subsequent re-opening of the Bid Process which saw the event held in Chicago. That decision however, lead to a fragmentation of attendees which saw both the Canadians and Americans showing loyalty to their own events. This diluted the critical mass( that was mentioned by a reviewer above) which is so essential to attain at an event like this ,if success is to be assured.
It was then , with great satisfaction, that I read of the resolution of conflict between both the FCG and the OutGames that will lead to a common event being held again in 2018. God knows, we are already marginalised enough without dissention in our own ranks. And to have that exist in the realm sport, which is often not high on the priority list of many gay people, we really were left quite descimated and despondent.
One of the previous reviewers spoke of his inability to find anyone to award a scholarship to for the wrestling competition in Copenhagen. Perhaps now that we are reunified in our pursuit of sport under the “one” gay umbrella, we will again achieve the critical mass that is so essential to the success of an event of this nature. Never again will we have to decide who will gain our allegiance, or which city achieved a better financial result than the other. Surely the ultimate winners in this situation will be the athletes themselves, who will really get to compete in an atmosphere of total inclusion, participation and personal best!
on Jul 16th, 2010 at 8:05 AM
July 18 , 2010
Organizers of 2014 Gay Games may be replaced
But the ‘intention is to keep it in Cleveland’
by Eric Resnick
Cleveland–Something has happened with the Cleveland group that is organizing the 2014 Gay Games in northeast Ohio.
“There is discussion about a shift in management, being dictated by the Federation of Gay Games,” said Positively Cleveland’s Communication Director Samantha Fryberger, “but the intention is to keep it in Cleveland.”
That could mean that the Cleveland Synergy Foundation, the group that put the proposal together, could be replaced.
The Synergy Foundation and its partners were called to a high-level meeting in Cleveland to discuss the matter on July 13.
The meeting was attended by Synergy founder Doug Anderson, Cleveland Chief of Government Affairs Valerie McCall, Positively Cleveland President Dennis Roche, Akron Summit County Visitor’s Bureau president Susan Hamo, bureau Vice President of Sales Dirk Breiding, and possibly others.
Only Fryberger would comment.
Her comment, however, confirmed speculation going around the Internet that Synergy may be replaced, and that the Cleveland selection is in trouble.
At the same time, Federation of Gay Games spokesperson Kelly Stevens confirmed that there are discussions going on about Cleveland that involve the federation’s co-presidents Kurt Dahl and Emy Ritt.
“I think we will have a comment in another week, but we’re not commenting now,” Stevens said.
In a later e‑mail, Stevens wrote, “We are very focused on events and planning for Gay Games VIII in Cologne, Germany.” Those games begin July 31.
“My focus is Cologne right now,” Stevens wrote. “I am sorry I do not have any comments for you.”
Anderson was reached after the Cleveland meeting.
“On advice of several people, we have no comment,” said Anderson. “When we have all the facts, we will make a statement.”
Asked what the facts involve, Anderson said, “No comment.”
Anderson was asked if Cleveland was in any danger of losing the Games.
“No comment,” Anderson said.
On July 6, Boston’s Spirit magazine published an article alleging foul play with the selection of Cleveland and Akron last year.
The other two cities in the running were Boston and Washington, D.C.
Anderson spoke to Spirit, as did his partner and Synergy co-founder Jeff Axberg.
“We tried our best to follow all of the rules and regulations, but there was some conflicting information from the Federation,” Axberg said. “On a personal level, I would love for a city in North America like Boston to host the Gay Games in 2018.”
Anderson and Axberg told Spirit that they were confused about the rules for the proposal.
The magazine reported that the rules limit the number of sports to 28. Cleveland proposed 40, including the golf event, which is to be held at Akron’s Firestone Country Club, 45 miles south of Cleveland.
“The guidelines also pushed cities to host events within a 15-minute radius, accessible by public transportation. Boston excelled in accomplishing this feat,” Spirit reported.
Issues are also being raised around financing and event management, questioning Synergy and the Cleveland bid’s commitment to securing long-term sponsors and ensuring the Games don’t lose money.
On July 9, Outsports.com reported that an unnamed person told them that the Cleveland Synergy Foundation “had left or been removed from their role as organizers of the Games.”
Anderson and Stevens both refused comment on that report.
However, both made attempts to discredit parts of the earlier article to this reporter, but would not say which parts were inaccurate.
Anderson called both articles “inaccurate.”
Asked what was inaccurate about them, Anderson replied, “No comment.”
Stevens said the Spirit piece is “an article by people who are unhappy about the site selection.”
“Every worst comment got in that article,” Stevens said.
Stevens said “the essence of it is true, but the facts are wrong.”
Stevens, however, would not say which facts were wrong nor offer any corrective information.