Cleveland Synergy Foundation, the group granted the right to host the 2014 Gay Games until the Federation of Gay Games stripped them of that right in July, filed a lawsuit today against the Federation of Gay Games. The City of Cleveland and two other defendants are also named in the suit. The FGG is being sued for alleged breach of the license agreement between the FGG and Cleveland Synergy, interference with contractual and business relations, civil conspiracy, false light and defamation. Cleveland Synergy is demanding a jury trial. You can read the formal complaint here.
Cleveland Synergy has also released a statement through their attorney, which you can read after the jump. We have reached out to the FGG for comment and will bring you that as we receive it.
“The Cleveland Synergy Foundation was formed for the purpose of engaging in charitable activities to enhance the economy, image and quality of life in the greater Cleveland gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and straight community by attracting and creating athletic, cultural, and other events and festivals. The Founders of Synergy, the Directors and the volunteers which comprise Synergy have worked tirelessly to bring the 2014 Gay Games to the City of Cleveland. To this end the Federation of Gay Games executed a License Agreement with Cleveland Synergy Group which granted Synergy “the exclusive right to host, organize, promote and present the Games.” On July 6, 2010 the Federation of Gay Games served notice to Synergy of their intent to terminate the License Agreement. The purported termination was simply the most recent example of the Federation of Gay Games failure to honor their obligation under the terms of the License Agreement.
“Since the purported termination of the License Agreement, Synergy has steadfastly refused to comment publicly regarding the breaches of the agreement which have occurred, or the conduct of various parties who had been intimately involved with their effort to bring the Gay Games to Cleveland. Since that time, Synergy has been victimized by assertions that they were in material default of the License Agreement. It has even been suggested that Synergy has engaged in financial impropriety. These assertions and implications are patently false.
“Synergy remains committed to bringing the Gay Games to Cleveland, Ohio and as the Federation of Gay Games had previously recognized they are uniquely qualified to host this monumental event. Unfortunately, it has become necessary to vindicate Synergy’s contractual right to host these games, but more importantly to protect the reputation of Synergy and its’ [sic] members to preserve their ongoing mission.”
Richard C. Haber
Andrew A. Kabat
Haber Polk Kabat, LLP
on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 6:41 PM
Sounds as if the FGG pulled another Montreal 2006. I have said before the FGG probably needs a complete overhaul and should bring in an outside Consulting firm to do it for them. The FGG board obviously would not be capable of looking at their decision making process in an unbiased manner, but seem quite capable of further damagin the gay sports movement.
on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 8:25 PM
Hi Swiminbuff,
This is an entirely different elected board of directors, with an entirely different situation than you described. A complete overhaul of the FGG started in Lyon, France in 2007. The FGG bylaw changes were significant. Many outside assessments and suggestions were reviewed and implemented to improve the FGG. Montreal never signed any license aggreement (contract) with the FGG. This is something that people do seem to understand many years later. I hesitate to comment on this old history, but if I do not, the facts remain inaccurate.
The Federation of Gay Games remains committed to Gay Games IX Cleveland 2014. The Federation of Gay Games is disappointed with the recent legal challenge by Cleveland Synergy Foundation. The Federation of Gay Games will review this with our attorneys and respond accordingly.
on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 4:50 AM
Looks to me as though the Synergy lawsuit boils down to one main point: FGG didn’t follow the procedures in their license agreement for severing their relationship, nor did they have the basis for doing so. (Paragraph 144, page 29).
Sounds like have a pretty good case.
on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 1:50 PM
With this case, how can ever take the FGG serious again. After pulling A stunt like this in 2006 ( wether the license was signed or not they spilled a lot of energy of a comitted group) they do it again in 2010 with the clevland organisation.
i totally agree with swim in buff FGG board is not capable anymore to make right decisions and my opnion is that they lost there credit as a leader in LGBT sports events with pulling these kind of stunts.
If the Federation wants a new joined organisation they really have to change there attitude and not do stuff like this if people are not doing there way!
Glisa has proofed it can be diffrent they should take an example of that only if they are willing to open up getting more transparent they will be capable to leave the past behind and we will have a new joined event in 2018.
I wish the Cleveland Synergy Foundation as well as the FGG the best of luck in this case.
on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 5:17 PM
It is really nice to finally see Cleveland Synergy Foundation’s side of the story! This lawsuit raises a lot more questions behind the actions and motivations of all parties concerned.
I couldn’t help but notice that Darl Schaaff is named frequently in the lawsuit correspondence between the FGG and CSF. As you may remember, Darl was the head of the FGG Site Selection committee and “loved Cleveland so much he purchased a home there” last January. This correspondence is expected since Darl had become the head of the FGG Steering Committee and was the only FGG candidate running this year for FGG VP of Host Relations. A position that should be noted now remains open due to Darl’s sudden and unexplained departure from the FGG Board, which occurred almost immediately after the final decision on CSF was made.
I do believe that the FGG may have their own strong and undisclosed reasons for removing CSF – reasons that have nothing to do with how much money the FGG will make off of the Games in 2014. Whether or not these reasons will ever be disclosed or whether they can hold up in court will be interesting to see.
I sincerely wish CSF luck in their lawsuit – hopefully this matter will be settled quickly.
on Sep 14th, 2010 at 8:39 PM
I was on the FGG board during the period 2001-2006, which covered the site selection process for and through Gay Games VII.
Yet again, let’s be clear. What the FGG “pulled” in its relationship with Montreal 2006 was a contract negotiation requiring the Gay Games VII host provide accurate and regular financial reports of cash on hand, cash projected to come in, and how the host planned to spend it.
Vancouver, New York (my hometown) and Amsterdam consecutively lost money hosting the Gay Games. History – not to mention LGBT sports groups, the community and media – demanded the FGG do what it could to stop the losses. This was only exacerbated when, a year after we selected Montreal to host in 2006, Sydney unfortunately became the fourth host to finish in the red.
Nevertheless, Montreal 2006 said in contract negotiations they did not believe past Gay Games debts applied to their situation locally nor did they need to heed the FGG board’s experience. Montreal 2006 said they had business acumen the FGG lacked, pulled out of contract negotiations in 2003, and then announced they’d put on an event anyway. For the next two years they bad-mouthed the FGG and the 2006 Gay Games replacement host, Chicago, and they started a rival organization, GLISA, to perpetuate the Outgames brand. They publicly said GLISA would replace the FGG.
And yet Montreal 2006 ultimately lost $5 million on their Outgames, an amount equaling the combined losses of all previous Gay Games plus another million dollars. Creditors and others felt no little betrayal and are still upset about it today – just like we warned Montreal 2006 had happened in Vancouver, New York, Amsterdam and Sydney.
Chicago’s Gay Games organizers followed contractual obligations Montreal 2006 claimed were unreasonable. Chicago showed it certainly was possible to organize a financially responsible Gay Games and they closed their books breaking even.
This has already been hashed and rehashed on Outsports. It’s nice to hear but ultimately beside the point if someone personally likes some of the people connected with Outgames or had fun in Montreal in 2006 – either you stand for financial responsibility or you don’t. Critics of the FGG during that period apparently don’t.
As well, we have someone above making claims about GLISA that I’d like to see backed up. I’m not aware that the current GLISA board has any meaningful role in the conduct of Outgames events – Copenhagen’s final report said GLISA was irrelevant. The only point of difference I’ve read from GLISA is that they insist a human rights conference be part of a Gay Games/Outgames. I’ve yet to see a specific, compelling case how GLISA is “better” than the FGG. The GLISA board doesn’t appear to hold open meetings and to my knowledge their officers never take part in public Internet message threads to address or explain anything.
I’ve been off the FGG board for three years and I have little direct knowledge of the Cleveland situation so at least for the moment I’m going to refrain from commenting. But I will continue correcting the record about the Gay Games VII site selection as appropriate. Should Swiminbuff be at the Honolulu IGLA Championships next July or available during the FGG’s meeting in Toronto a few months later, there are any number of people who were directly involved who’d be happy to meet with him about it further.
on Sep 27th, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Wow! Charlie’s comments represent the first time a former FGG officer has confessed in a public forum that the FGG introduced new financial reporting requirements AFTER voting to award the Gay Games to Montreal. Of course those and all relevant requirements should have been disclosed to all bidders before they were even given the opportunity to prepare a bid. Thank you very much for setting the record straight on what happened.
As for Cleveland, the FGG should let the community know exactly what the alleged breach of contract was by Synergy. Enough with the vague statements. Why doesn’t anybody have a clue about this?
on Sep 27th, 2010 at 7:05 PM
I wrote before that I believed that we were in a rough bargaining process which in the end would result in a Games in Cleveland, even if it would be a nail- biter right down to the wire. Somebody will bid a deal that both sides can live with and can’t be bluffed off of, regardless of the yelling and non- credible threats. Montreal preferred no Games and a coup against FGG to any deal – that’s not a game, it’s a fight! I see no evidence Cleveland has those preferences, although I wonder if GLISA will insert itself and fish in troubled waters – lol
on Sep 27th, 2010 at 8:13 PM
Regardless of what Montreal wanted or how much they can be demonized, the point is that Charlie Carson has finally slipped and admitted Montreal had a legitimate grievance all along–the FGG changed the rules on them.
Are we going to learn the FGG changed the rules again on Cleveland Synergy? Are there any real journalists out there who can find out what the Cleveland Synergy breach really was? Do we have a right to know?
on Oct 22nd, 2010 at 1:47 AM
I haven’t looked at this thread since a couple of days after I posted. It’s bizarre seeing someone declare a sudden gotcha moment about things the FGG addressed openly seven years ago.
Why is this particular (incorrect) point that important to him now, in this thread? If you’re going to try to call me out, Tommy, then be an adult and tell us who you are. Fair is fair.
These matters are long on public record — in particular in the 27-page document and accompanying letter to the public posted on the FGG website from late November 2003 until the website was relaunched last year (six years — that should be long enough, but it’s fine with me if it gets posted again). Further, a search for “2006 Schism” here at Outsports shows 42 pages in which various FGG officers talked about this and many, many other things. Oy, some of those things.
Because new people land on these pages at times without context, here are a few more comments about the above.
All 2001 bidding organizations certainly did know ahead of time that selection was contingent upon successful negotiation of a license agreement. Once we chose Montreal, it was not the FGG alone that caused negotiations to last beyond the July 2002 annual meeting in Vancouver and then past the Sydney Gay Games that November. Montreal 2006 introduced its own new language throughout as the drafts dragged on. It is amazing to me that this is so difficult for some people to believe.
Of course Sydney’s concurrent loss had an influence on the negotiations! Again, the LGBT sports community, LGBT media and the FGG board itself recognized that both the governing body and next host needed to show that something was being done to stop the losses. Montreal 2006 reps agreed in some e-mails that such a stance was appropriate, but then reneged on that by walking away. Their later “they changed the rules on us” complaint was simply among their justifications for walking.
In the not distant future the contract drafts and accompanying e-mails between the then-FGG and Montreal 2006 will be a part of the Gay Games archives at the San Francisco Public Library. People can wade through that material and come to their own conclusions. Montreal 2006/Outgames I officials could show similar good faith by making their internal documents public somewhere. We’ll see if that happens.
Moving on, I am encouraged by the news this week that a new group representing Cleveland’s LGBT community plus local officials has stepped forward to produce the 2014 Gay Games. It’s pretty clear that Cleveland will indeed now host, with Chicago and Cologne having set considerable standards of success to emulate. The Synergy lawsuit, unfortunate as these things are, will take as long as it takes. Meanwhile, I had a friend on each of the Boston and Washington bid committees and I understand their groups’ disappointment. All of us should thank these bidders, urge them now to take the long view and support Cleveland, and – certainly – consider bidding again.
on Oct 28th, 2010 at 7:28 PM
Sure both parties always said the sticking point was about financial reporting and size of the games, but this is the first time an officer has openly admitted that the FGG handed out one set of rules to induce bidders to participate and then said “just kidding, these are the new rules and requirements you must agree to in order to host, take it or leave it” AFTER selecting Montreal.
Charlie sheds further light on the FGG thinking by suggesting those bidders should have known all along the FGG could change the rules and requirements at their discretion until the contract was signed. While that certainly falls short of an outright apology, it is a startling admission to read nearly a decade after the fact. I know of no other FGG officer who has made a similar admission, but if Charlie or anybody else could cite it, I would be more than happy to retract my comment.
I should also point out that we STILL have no idea what Cleveland Synergy’s supposed breach was.
on Nov 8th, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Charlie…you should not be “encouraged by the news a new group representing the LGBT community, plus local officials stepped forward to produce the 2014 Gay Games”. Read the complaint that is available on the internet and you will see how it appears that there was collusion that went on months prior to the termination of Licensing Agreement with the Cleveland Synergy Foundation to take the Games away from them…not by and LGBT gorup, but by the city itself with a few token gays thrown in to cover their tracks. There are no gay athletes on the new group, nor anyone who has participated in past Games…mostly straight, city employed leaders who decided to jump on the wagon after the bid was won. This hijacking of the event could not have happened without the cooperation and participation of a few members of the FGG. Could their motivation be a re-negotiated contract with less knowledgable inidividuals in the gay community? Some questions need to be asked and answered.
on Jan 31st, 2012 at 5:05 PM
This lawsuit may be a “blessing” for the gay community of Cleveland. I have lived in this city all of my life, and doubt that the community would be able to pull off a “halfway” sucessful anything, much less the gay olympics.
This will be interesting