A few weeks ago the Deseret Morning News published a column in which I claimed that the law of supply and demand applies to entrepreneurs raising investment money. While most of the reader response to the column was positive, a handful of bloggers responded with venom.

One local CEO with a history of being critical of Utah's angel investment community wrote in an e-mail that I was "stuck in this rut" and that I needed to "get with the program."

He chided me for not investing in his company and said that I have damaged my portfolio by not investing in him and by continuing in my "backwards Utah" ways (which is funny, since I transplanted here from another state not too long ago).

He went on to write that I should only invest in the best entrepreneurs and stop "screwing around" with lower qualified entrepreneurs and "backwards Utah terms." He said that broadcasting my "short-sighted, small-town way of 'venture' investing ... reflects poorly on Utah's tech sector, not to mention the (BYU) Marriott School."

Ignoring that level of drama, let's look at the real underlying questions:

• Do less-than-ideal entrepreneurs and their deals deserve mentoring and investment?
• Are only highly-favorable-to-the-entrepreneur terms acceptable, even if that puts the risk/reward ratio out of whack, or are there workable alternatives?

My simple message is that non-Tier 1 entrepreneurs deserve a shake, and maybe they should accept less favorable terms in order to get funding.

What do I mean by Tier 1? I explain in the chart that is running with this column.

trying to convey. "Hot" deals (Tier 1) will get funded on terms favorable to the entrepreneur - and rightfully so.

However, my point was that Tier 2 and Tier 3 deals - which are the vast majority of what I see as an angel investor - should not expect Tier 1 terms. And those who encourage them to expect such terms do a disservice to that entrepreneur - and ultimately the market.

I asked the upset CEO-reader if he thought alternative financing was ever appropriate. He responded that he is "teaching people (even Tier 2, 3 and 4 people) how to structure traditional, mainstream venture financing deals." He concluded: "I don't (think) the Utah-style venture debt deals are ever acceptable for tech funding."

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. And I'll prove that in another follow-up article.

The fact is, I want more entrepreneurs to get funded. That's not anti-entrepreneur, it's very pro-entrepreneur! Not everyone is the next Google or Omniture, but they don't have to fold up the tent and go home.

Moral of the story: If you have some fundamental weaknesses in your offering that make you a Tier 2 or 3, don't give up. Go out and be flexible on terms, and you can find financing that works for everyone in the deal.