Warrior General Games

Originally posted by CyberNinja
You guys are totally missing my point. Why would Bort allow more the one co-owner to have the same privlidges as an owner. The only way that will happen is to pay flex to be a co-owner.

In other words why pay for a team, if you can have the same privligdes for free


split the cost.

Originally posted by Alky
split the cost.

So you would be ok, paying 200 flex for a casual, and pee wee and 500 flex for a regular team to be a co-owner?

Originally posted by CyberNinja
You guys are totally missing my point. Why would Bort allow more the one co-owner to have the same privlidges as an owner. The only way that will happen is to pay flex to be a co-owner.

In other words why pay for a team, if you can have the same privligdes for free


Yeah, I didn't miss it just ignored it because I think the benefits to players - and therefore player enjoyment aka player retention - outweight that risk.

Also the current co-owner is pretty strong as well, it already has most of that problem inherent to it.

It certainly would be a decision for Bort to make but I think in the end to the extent it effects flex spending at all, it would be a net gainer.

Originally posted by CyberNinja
So you would be ok, paying 200 flex for a casual, and pee wee and 500 flex for a regular team to be a co-owner?

Not sure that would be a good thing to be mandatory. But I do think a co-owner should have the ability to pay the cost ownership.

But I think thats a NGTH.

Originally posted by yello1
Yeah, I didn't miss it just ignored it because I think the benefits to players - and therefore player enjoyment aka player retention - outweight that risk.

Also the current co-owner is pretty strong as well, it already has most of that problem inherent to it.

It certainly would be a decision for Bort to make but I think in the end to the extent it effects flex spending at all, it would be a net gainer.

But the OP isn't talking about one co-owner, he is talking about joint co-owners, meaning more then one.

Originally posted by CyberNinja
But the OP isn't talking about one co-owner, he is talking about joint co-owners, meaning more then one.

No I'm not, maybe I didn't make my point well enough.

The team would be owned by 2 co-owners, not 1 owner and co-owners.

I don't understand why there would be the need to charge extra flex for a co-owner to be allowed in. The team is already there, bought and paid for regardless of who pays for it.
As there is already an option to 'donate' flex through the team, if an outright owner did want to split the cost, this is one way it could be done, another would be via paypal which we all have.

If however that Bort decided that he was getting robbed by having joint ownership of a team, then I would be will ing to pay extra, even though I think that would stink a little.

Your title "Joint co-owners" you said in the OP, you wanted the co-owner to have the same privilidges as the owner.

So what you meant is that you want dual or shared ownership, which is impossible, since there has to be an owner to have co-owner. But you guys are still missing the point.

Bort charges to own a team, why would he let people "own" a team without paying, which is basically what a co-owner with full owner privildges is.

Originally posted by CyberNinja
Your title "Joint co-owners" you said in the OP, you wanted the co-owner to have the same privilidges as the owner.

So what you meant is that you want dual or shared ownership, which is impossible, since there has to be an owner to have co-owner. But you guys are still missing the point.

Bort charges to own a team, why would he let people "own" a team without paying, which is basically what a co-owner with full owner privildges is.





Yep, I don't see why it should be impossible, if it is.
Hey theres a world wide recession on right now and it may be attractive to people to either join or STAY in GLB.
Would it really hurt?

Originally posted by Gustoon
I have a very good friend here on GLB and want to share the team right down the middle.
Is there any way we can have that option with all the current owner privileges as well?

Yep, one guy pays the flex to buy the team, another deposits an equal amount of flex into the scrim bank every season, problem solved.

My verbal response- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKss2uYpih8