I'm not a "founder" - as near as I can tell this happened shortly about 5 years ago, a few months before I joined, and has never been offered again. That founders can have as many teams as they want while only paying for three explains many things about the game and its finances to me.

I never understood how with approximately 500+ teams owned the system wasn't financially viable at $5,000 a month in revenue. That a large portion of those teams are free explains alot.

I'd suggest the following - founders get a free team for every team they pay for - which would mean a maximum of 6 teams for the current price of 3. I have two reasons for this.

One, since this offer hasn't been extended to everyone, I think its somewhat unfair to those of us who have come along later. While I personally do not want more than two teams, I think any owner who has been paying for 5 or 6 or more teams the last few years has gotten a raw deal. I believe the cost to be a founder was $100 correct? That has clearly been paid for by now many fold for those owners with 4 or more teams. For some owners to have 10+ teams and pay less than those with 4 teams is too extreme given the initial outlay.

Two, I feel this has hurt the competitive balance of the leagues. I don't believe any owner can actively manage and participate in more than 4 or 5 leagues and focus his efforts as needed. By allowing founders to have so many teams they can ignore the poor ones and focus on who is doing well. They don't need to work hard on all the teams they own because some are bound to be good, and if team A is out of the race, well teams B, C and D look good for this year, and E, F, and G are for next year, and maybe two years from now H might be OK. I've never understood why some owners would never play their games, or be willing to draft a team all for the future the first year, or make no deals for years at a time. Now I suspect its because they had other teams to focus on. It puts owners on different playing fields, as not every team needs to be competitive each year to be fun - it lets owners with many teams draft well into the future, or trade for the long term, and if that doesn't pan out, there is another team to focus on. In short, unless each and every team has "value" to the owner as a potential winning team this year or next, how much is invested? Its like having 20 favorite baseball teams in real life, you know someone will be in the playoffs or have a great year, but what fun is that?

I've already argued for one time payments. But I really think the current founder agreement is flawed both financially and in terms of the game itself.

Fred C