Warrior General Games

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?

Get a room.

-100

Man i know. My four brothers, ten sisters, twenty cousins, and 21 co-workers want to play, just cause we all use the same ip address, glb won't let us.

if every body puts in a small bud, they are all joint-co-owners

͜͡͡ ͜͜͜͡͡͡ ͜͜͜͡͡͡ ͜͜͜͡͡͡ ͜͜͡~~~~~~
<=====0

Thanks Kids

Whats the point of having Co-owner if they don't have the same access as the owner? An option to share the team in my opinion should be looked at. Not least the amount of owners who suddenly disappear and leave teams in the lurch, this would make things alot easier.

I'll give a +1

Originally posted by Gustoon
Thanks Kids

Whats the point of having Co-owner if they don't have the same access as the owner? An option to share the team in my opinion should be looked at. Not least the amount of owners who suddenly disappear and leave teams in the lurch, this would make things alot easier.

Hey Kid, answer me this

If an owner, could add more then one co-owner, and those co-owners would have the same privileges, what would be the point of buying teams?, you want to own a team, buy a team. Too many cooks also, there isn't much an owner does, aside from financial stuff, if he/she has coordinators, recruiters and scouts. What are all of you going to do, that one person can't? If the owner doesn't have a couple minuets to log in and do the one or two things he needs to do for his team, then he shouldn't own a team.

I think the Co-owner position is a waste, it was just added to shut the kids up, same as the HC, CFO positions

Originally posted by CyberNinja
Hey Kid, answer me this

If an owner, could add more then one co-owner, and those co-owners would have the same privileges, what would be the point of buying teams?, you want to own a team, buy a team. Too many cooks also, there isn't much an owner does, aside from financial stuff, if he/she has coordinators, recruiters and scouts. What are all of you going to do, that one person can't? If the owner doesn't have a couple minuets to log in and do the one or two things he needs to do for his team, then he shouldn't own a team.

I think the Co-owner position is a waste, it was just added to shut the kids up, same as the HC, CFO positions

To be able to have the option, say when you renew or buy a team would be good IMO. Yes, I agree that owners don't have that much to do , you can do as much or as little as you like......
My point still is this, whats the point of having a co-owner if they are not party to the same privileges?

Originally posted by Gustoon
To be able to have the option, say when you renew or buy a team would be good IMO. Yes, I agree that owners don't have that much to do , you can do as much or as little as you like......
My point still is this, whats the point of having a co-owner if they are not party to the same privileges?

The same reason Bort charges people to buy teams, why would anyone want to buy a team, if they could be a co-owner and do the same thing for free?

Originally posted by CyberNinja
The same reason Bort charges people to buy teams, why would anyone want to buy a team, if they could be a co-owner and do the same thing for free?

I disagree. First off I believe that it would have the opposite effect, sharing the load makes it much easier running a team.
Secondly, every now and then people go AWOL because real life doesn't involve GLB, having at least one active owner can stop a team slipping into being inactive, which we all know sucks big time.

+1, My team is basically co-owned as well already, just unofficially. We are the only two that built dots and we sit right behind each other at work. We flipped a coin to see who would "own" the team, but it would have been nice to just co-own.

There are many Co-owners in real life in any sport so why not here?

When you go to buy a team they have an option that asks if you have a co-owner and if you choose yes you type in that agents name and they will confirm this through an auto message and if he accepts the flex is split and the team is owned by both.

+1

No harm in this anyways.

Originally posted by CyberNinja
Hey Kid, answer me this

If an owner, could add more then one co-owner, and those co-owners would have the same privileges, what would be the point of buying teams?, you want to own a team, buy a team. Too many cooks also, there isn't much an owner does, aside from financial stuff, if he/she has coordinators, recruiters and scouts. What are all of you going to do, that one person can't? If the owner doesn't have a couple minuets to log in and do the one or two things he needs to do for his team, then he shouldn't own a team.

I think the Co-owner position is a waste, it was just added to shut the kids up, same as the HC, CFO positions

Everyone needs time off / away. Having a baby sitting co-owner is nice. Then there is the team merger situation. Been involved on both ends of that, the OP would be a plus in that regard.

And if two peeps want to split a team from the get go for whatever reason, why not?

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