I have tried to look at this from both points of view, myself as a founder and Purebaseball as a business.

I think like myself many founding managers have added teams over time, thinking it was better for us to manage them than leave them unmanaged. If you remember up until 2 years ago an unmanaged team was dead, you could not interact with them. Mike B. made a great adjustment when he took over control of the unmanaged teams and started allowing trades with them.

From a business stand point of Purebaseball I think we all will agree the more managers (I think there are currently 87 unmanaged teams not counting real time leagues)the better Purebaseball will be. But is it fair to change to rules on the founding managers who took over the dead unmanaged teams and tried to make Purebaseball better in its current form? Let me also say a manager who does not return emails, make trades, or adjust rosters is worse than an unmanaged team.

I just want to toss out a few thoughts out.

1) Every founding member is locked with there current team count. Any new teams added would have to pay a $3 per month per team.

2) Mike B. takes an average number of teams owned by founding members (this will become a threshold later)

3) All founding members agree to pay a $5 per month increase to $34.85 per month. Lets believe in Mike B. and Purebaseball to become better.

4) When Purebaseball leagues has 26 or fewer unmanaged teams founding manager with more teams than the average in #2 would pay another $5 per month or have to vacate teams to reach that number. This means the most a founding member would pay to keep his current teams is $39.85 per month. Plus $3.00 per month for any new teams he wants to add.

5) Inactive managers need to be contacted by Mike B. and if they do not become an active member their teams count should be reduced to 3 teams.

I have no idea what anyone will think of these ideas. Please feel free to add your input, change, or adjust them. Lets find a solution that will work for everyone involved.