Outsports received a tip earlier this week that Cleveland Synergy Foundation, the group that won the right to host the 2014 Gay Games, had left or been removed from their role as organizers of the Games. Reached on Wednesday, Federation of Gay Games spokesman Kelly Stevens said, “No comment.” Attempts to reach Stevens later in the week went unreturned.
This morning, Cleveland Synergy Foundation co-founder Doug Anderson also offered “No comment” when asked about his organization’s role with the Gay Games. When asked if he had heard any rumors at all about their removal from Gay Games 2014, he again said, “No comment.”
Stevens did mention meeting of the FGG this weekend, after which they may have something to say.
Outsports will bring you further information as we receive it.
on Jul 9th, 2010 at 5:18 PM
Is this a repeat of Montreal 2006?
on Jul 10th, 2010 at 7:00 PM
Jeez! Are the GG’s cursed or something??
on Jul 14th, 2010 at 7:25 PM
.. or maybe good business and good negotiations which are the hallmark of any good contract…
Why should it shock anyone that there is hardball negotiating going on?
Sydney 2002 went through 3 CEOs, Chicago 2, Amsterdam’s city government stepped in and booted the bid board… etc… etc.. Montreal just walked away!
Leadership changes, board reorganizations… this is all quite NORMAL in mainstream non-profits.
It really is no one’s business right now.
on Jul 15th, 2010 at 7:26 AM
The fine people in Washington, DC and Boston – who also bid for the 2014 Gay Games – might disagree with the most recent post, particularly the last sentence. What has the Federation found out since awarding Cleveland Synergy Foundation the bid less than a year ago? What lessons can the FGG learn to avoid this from happening again? “It really is on one’s business right now” makes it sound like there is something to hide. And having come from the non-profit sector, I wouldn’t say this is normal. Let’s learn from this and move forward.
In fact the public in general, especially those who support the Gay Games, is interested in this news. Thank you Outsports for the post – we look forward to learning more details. This is everyone’s business.
on Jul 15th, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Mark… We will have to agree to disagree.
First off, NO ONE CARES about the sour grapes rumors.
Just look at the few posts here and whom they are from.
I am in the land of a zillion nonprofits (San Francisco), and I sit on some and run a 501c3 as well. Large and small it is NORMAL to have major reshufflings periodically in these organizations.
It is also very good business to NOT wash dirty linen in public.
All processes in all organizations need evolution, but it is not an automatic indictment that there were shady dealings in the past.
If expectations, language, and contracts were always perfect without question, we would not need lawyers. But reality is what it is… interpretations require negotiations.
IMHO, all this sour grapes is unbecoming in its implications. The public does not get to sit on the Cleveland or FGG Boards during negotiations because some think it is ‘everyone/s business’. It legally is not.
on Jul 16th, 2010 at 12:53 AM
There is a more information in the Cleveland LGBT paper at:
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories10/july/0716101.htm
on Jul 16th, 2010 at 1:10 AM
“on july 6, 2010, the federation of gay games, inc. (fgg) notified Synergy that FGG was exercising its right to terminate the license agreement with Synergy for the 2014 Gay Games in Cleveland and agreeing to pursue voluntary mediation within fourteen days to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues.”
pretty much says it all.
on Jul 16th, 2010 at 2:02 PM
… and you can go down to any civil courthouse and look at the reams of filings just like this involving thousands of other civil contracts.
It is NORMAL business as usual, except that this has an LGBT twist, and so it usually comes with more ‘Drama’ than needed.
I would really be worried if we did NOT have this kind of intense negotiations going on between the FGG and the Host.
Do you forget that in 2001 Sydney 2002 GayGames was ~2 minutes from a court ordered injunction filed by the FGG?
The REAL FEAR should be letting the host run wild and free unsupervised unmonitored with YOUR registration $$.
The GayGames is not a commercial opportunity.
It is a community based Non-Profit event that must have total financial transparency from Day#1, like any other governmental or 501c3 entity.
The FGG is ultimately repsonsible as the owner and licensor of the event to enforce this via the contract.
This is the FGG’s ‘Due Diligence’.
Lets not confuse good business with the emotions of bid disappointment.
on Jul 16th, 2010 at 3:07 PM
OK – I know because of my past as pro-GLISA some people will take me to taks for this – but I’ve got to ask Gene – is it really ‘normal’ for most negotiations of this type to reach the point of threatened suits and legal actions – and we just don’t hear about it?
This seems to happen with almost every Gay Games bid. I just can’t imagine that the majority of similar internationally sanctioned festival or sport event has it go to these kind of dramatic showdowns before agreement is reached. Do they?
Sure I know it does happen SOMETIMES. I’ll use an example that is top of mind this weekend here in Toronto with the Indy Car series back this weekend having missed Toronto a couple of years ago much like Formula One skipped Montreal last year. Every year we might hear of threats to pull the races from one or two cities in a 10-15 race season – meaning that it sounds like 90% of the races go ahead without issue between the host city and sanctioning body.
Yet with the exception of Cologne which it sounds like has progressed without their being a ‘critical showdown’ moment it seems every other Gay Games cycle as of late has had one between the host organization and FGG.
Is that REALLY NORMAL? Or perhaps is that more normal in the US than here? Or am I just being totally silly and naive here and this type of thing would be normal here in Canada too?
Just asking.
on Jul 16th, 2010 at 11:23 PM
Theoretically speaking, most bargaining involves a back-and-forth process where proposed deals are bid by players, starting with the deal that is best for each player until both agree on a bid [ergo a contract. What commonly happens then is that one side bluffs by asking for a better deal than the contract. Since the other side knows the bluffer can live with the contract [they bid it, after all], they call the bluff – not that they really prefer ” no deal”, but that they know the other does not prefer “no deal.” Often the bluffer becomes very emotional to try to persuade the other that they are so mad that they will really behave irrationally. That should fail, unless things get out of hand and a fight breaks out, blowing up the entire process, which outcome neither prefers. They are playing a game of Chicken – defined as a game where any deal is better than ” no deal”. Most business negotiations fall into this category of games and are resolved by bargaining It may get hot and heavy, especially toward the end of the process, where stress is very high and both sides are tired, but we expect the contract to hold Sorry to give part of my game and drama theory lecture, but this is where we have gotten in applied mathematics, and we understand significantly more about social interaction. Maybe this will be helpful to our discussion here – hope so. Maybe sometime we can sit down together and I can walk you through the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, a great, if terrifying, case of the resolution of Chicken by bargaining. One still has to make some assumptions about the players’ cognitive abilities to bargain in a minimally rational way. I am essentially agreeing with Gene about standard business practice and not getting too overwrought about what is going on here – even if we care about it passionately, and hate people who take pure conflict attitudes into Chicken situations [2006 Montreal imho]. Rationality tends not to work in fights, as opposed to games!
on Jul 17th, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Thanks lacharlie13 for your take on this.
I must admit – being on the sidelines and just watching things like this work their way through all the drama is much more fun than when I was involved with Team Toronto and lived all this crap. Best wishes for the best outcome possible – whatever that might end up being.
on Sep 6th, 2010 at 12:12 PM
bring the games to Los Angeles, the city needs the money
on Apr 13th, 2012 at 12:04 PM
My brother recommended I would possibly like this website. He used to be totally right. This put up truly made my day. You can not believe simply how so much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!