USA 2024

[Quaker2001]

Sending a letter - and $50,000 - is a good step. But until they figure out how to pay for a LA games, I'm not sure how credible the bid is.

Just keep telling yourself this LA bid isn't legit. Maybe if you wishing for it to happen, it might actually come true.

[FYI]

A simple Google is all it took. Not too difficult.

Is that why the other poster only posted "part" of the letter? Regardless, the "Christ" part is what could've been left out (& that would've been the end of it), since it's stuff like that, that makes GB's such a wonderful place at times.

[nykfan845]

Is that why the other poster only posted "part" of the letter? Regardless, the "Christ" part is what could've been left out (& that would've been the end of it), since it's stuff like that, that makes GB's such a wonderful place at times.

Did I hurt your feelings? Stop being such a baby.

And people denying the credibilty of an LA bid are very funny.

[FYI]

Did I hurt your feelings? Stop being such a baby.

Stop being such a b!tch. "Christ!" It seems that's the only thing you've been good at all these years.

And people denying the credibilty of an LA bid are very funny.

Then redirect your snippyness with them, since obviously that is someone else here.

[Quaker2001]

Well, the "full" letter(s) certainly helps, (however you can leave out the snarky attitude). The GB's newswire section clearly identified how Paris, Rome & Hamburg sent their letters by their respective NOC's. The only thing that was there about Los Angeles was that city officials & others "traveled" to Lausaunne, but no other clarification was there other than that. Not everyone has the time to surf other channels for Olympic-related tidbits like clearly some other people do. GB's is enough for me to do that with.

Is that why the other poster only posted "part" of the letter? Regardless, the "Christ" part is what could've been left out (& that would've been the end of it), since it's stuff like that, that makes GB's such a wonderful place at times.

This is what happens here on GB that we sometimes assume any and all relevant Olympic news is waiting for us here. That's not usually the case. Someone has to go out there and find some of that relevant info. This isn't the newswire section. phandrosis posted what he said was only part of the letter. You jumped to the conclusion that wasn't the real deal. Someone else took the time to prove that it was because you didn't feel like taking the time to check it out (sounds like another poster on here who I won't name) what you believed was bad information. Was the snark necessary? Probably not. But here's how you could have ended it..

Thank you nyk for posting the full letter for us.

[FYI]

I didn't jump to any conclusion. I just asked if that letter was also signed by the USOC. And since the USOC didn't fully disclose the letter until just yesterday, it was certainly a fair question to ask since it wouldn't have been available on any "google" searches prior to Tuesday. But "thank you" almighty Quaker for pointing out my mistake, & please excuse me if I didn't take that little snipit of that incomplete letter at that particular moment as the "real deal". Heaven forbid anyone questions anything around here. I didn't know we had designated "go getters" of all relavant Olympic-related information on these boards.

And for someone that has gone countless rounds with TELA (of all people) over much more trivial stuff on these boards, that is the pot calling the kettle black. So please stop with the sanctimonious 'lesson' & heed your own advice (which also sounds like another former poster which I won't name either), since you didn't need to chime in on something that didn't warrant anything from you, much less a patronizing vitriol.

[Nacre]

It is not unreasonable that the US disproportionately host games given those figures because 1 body represents significantly more people. A more balanced approach would have all of Europe represented by 2 NOC's but since that is not the case it's not hard to see why the USOC has a strong presence. Then consider the even greater disproportion in the revenue side. I'm not sure this articulately works in either city's favor but it may explain 100 years on no Paris. The same argument could be used by a major US City that has never hosted the games (NYC)

I understand why you think this. And I want you to understand that if the Los Angeles bid team makes these arguments they are going to immediately have doors slammed in their faces.

The Olympics should be awarded to the city with the best plan. Picking a city with a poor plan because "you owe it to us" or "because it is our time to host" is a terrible strategy. And do you really think that China should host four Olympics to every one in the USA since they have more than four times the US population? Meanwhile the IOC would very much like a strong New York bid, but New York has never put forward a great bid with the kind of Olympic Park that London gave them.

The IOC may be Eurocentric, but European cities also have a number of legitimate advantages over American cities. I'll use my own city of Seattle as an example so people in Philadelphia and Chicago won't be offended by criticism of their cities.

Seattle actually has some advantages for hosting the Olympics.

• Big corporations for local sponsorship. (Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, Amazon.com, etc.) Other American cities like San Francisco, Chicago, etc should be able to offer a similar (or even better) suite of corporations. IE Coca Cola for Atlanta.
• One airport the size of Barcelona's airport, and a downtown relief airport. American cities in general have huge airports compared to Europe, which is a major advantage. The airports also have more runways, while European airports are often at full runway capacity. Heathrow in London has fewer runways that Seattle's primary airport does, so there is a lot more capacity for charter flights in Seattle.
• Seattle is surrounded by mountains, snowy volcanoes, water and forests. It has the same kind of landscape advantages as Rio. Some other cities in the Americas can offer similar natural beauty.

Now the downsides:

• Seattle has no metro system and horrific traffic. American cities (other than Manhattan) have woeful mass transit compared to Europe.
• The city itself is not as beautiful as European cities. The same is true for every other American city.
• Seattle is surrounded by lots of beautiful protected forests, but since they are protected they can't be chopped down to build a sprawling Olympic Park or a new ski slope for the alpine skiing for the winter games.
• As a hyper-democratic city, the public is able to derail any kind of unpopular construction project for decades. A classic example is the time the public voted to build a new monorail line and then refused to pay the taxes to actually construct it. Most American cities are not as bad at this as Seattle or Denver, but democracies are actually a negative for the IOC (and FIFA.)
• If Seattle were going to spend public money on stadiums, it would be aimed at domestic sports leagues instead of Olympic sports. The city wants the Sonics back. It does not want to rebuild Husky Stadium to put a track under removable seating. Similarly the Bay Area wants to keep the Raiders in Oakland with an NFL oriented stadium rather than a track stadium.

[FYI]

Saying that LA will bid after defeat is not very substantial because in 2020, the USOC did not bid. At the same time both Olympic Organizing committees have come back and bid again. I don't see much truth to an argument there either way.

The USOC didn't bid for 2020 because they were still reeling over their stinging defeat over the 2016 Games. A first-round voting U.S exit for those Games was not expected whatsoever. Several factors played into that, the rift over revenue-sharing between the USOC & IOC, for one. Second, the IOC also wasn't too happy with the USOC at the time of the 2016 campaign, because they wanted to start their own "Olympic channel". Third, New York & Chicago were no longer interested (& who could blame them really). And Fourth, the USOC was much more busy at work in trying to mend the relations with the IOC that undermined both their 2012 & especially their 2016 campaigns, than to throw another bid out right away for 2020, until all those things were sorted out.

Now that the new revenue deal is behind them & even more time has passed, & is passing, from the last U.S. Summer Games, the climate is much more favorable to go with another 2028 bid if the 2024 one doesn't pan out. Unlike the other U.S. alpha cities, Los Angeles always seems to be the eager beaver that is always willing to play ball. And considering how the USOC was/is so willing to still bid for 2024 after the whole Boston 2024 debacle (which probably should've been more of a reflection process than to still go forward with this), then yes, another 2028 run should be very substantial, considering all of the above, if L.A. walks away empty-handed in Lima in Sept. 2017.

The same cannot be said for Paris. It took a lot for them to come forward for 2024. Even as recent as six months ago it was still very questionable whether they'd put their name forward again. So another big defeat, I seriously doubt they'd be back anytime soon, & if the IOC would like Paris sooner rather than later, then I seriously believe that it's now or never. At the very least for a long time to come, anyway.

[Quaker2001]

Welcome to the forum, RuFF. I few points to offer..

New to the forum and read a few pages back to get up to speed on the thread. Some things I noticed in the Paris/LA back and forth that I thought were misinformed or might also deserve consideration. First, Paris represents the country of France and the bid put fourth by the CNOSF. LA represents the country of the United States of America and is put forth by the USOC. Both countries have been rejected for previous games and both have exercised their right to not bid for the next available Olympic Games. Saying that LA will bid after defeat is not very substantial because in 2020, the USOC did not bid. At the same time both Olympic Organizing committees have come back and bid again. I don't see much truth to an argument there either way.

LA was ready to bid for 2016. Here they are again for 2024 even after they initially got rejected by the USOC. While not a guarantee, it's a pretty decent bet they'll want to come again. Even though NYC and Chicago didn't try after losing, LA is different. As FYI noted, the reasons the USOC didn't bid for 2020 are unlikely to repeat themselves this time around. In hindsight, perhaps they shouldn't have even gone for 2012 or 2016. But now that they have their house in order, I feel confident that they'll keep trying even if they lose this one. And with South Africa having stated their intentions to not bid again until 2032, that leaves the door wide open for a US bid for 2028.

Second, taken as a whole, Europe has just over twice the population of the United States, and France twice that of the State of California. The United States has significantly more people than France. Europe has many national Olympic organizing committees and the US has 1. It is not unreasonable that the US disproportionately host games given those figures because 1 body represents significantly more people. A more balanced approach would have all of Europe represented by 2 NOC's but since that is not the case it's not hard to see why the USOC has a strong presence. Then consider the even greater disproportion in the revenue side. I'm not sure this articulately works in either city's favor but it may explain 100 years on no Paris. The same argument could be used by a major US City that has never hosted the games (NYC)

There's a simpler explanation with Paris.. they didn't bid. Can't win it if you're not in it. France didn't bid for another Summer Olympics until 1968 and that was with Lyon. Then they try again in 1992 which probably would have won if not for Juan Antonio Samaranch essentially rigging the vote for his hometown Barcelona. Contrast that with the United States which had the good fortune of putting up Atlanta in 1996 and they pull off the win because of the lack of competition. New York was interested in the `84 Games, but the USOC went with LA. We've had "alternate reality" discussions here over "what if Athens gets 1996 instead of Atlanta." I've made the argument the next Summer Olympics may very well have been in New York. But history simply didn't work out that way.

Third. This has to do with the LA budget. Nearly 2 billion is not included in LA's bid because the Fedshandle that. 7 billion is not included because with or without the Olympics, LA already has a major renovation of its International Airport underway. 1 billion is not included because LA already has a major revitalization of the LA River underway. Billions more (40) are not included in LA's budget because of major expansions to public transit in the form of rail and highway improvements are already underway. 500 million are also not included because USC already is moving forward with a Colesium renovation on the heels of a 300 million upgrade to the Rose Bowl. LA's modest budget is that way not so much because of a low ball, but more so because LA initiated, on its own, plans to modernize the city and the Olympics could benefit from those plans, and not the other way around. The legacy is there, it was built into LA before the Olympics were on the table. LA has actively engaged in modernizing its public and sporting infrastructure independent of the Olympic Bid.

They need to be careful though, because that sounds a lot like Boston, where they didn't count the cost of existing infrastructure projects in the Olympic budget, so it made it seem like the games would be less expensive than advertised. If LA can weave the Olympics into the city's plans for development, that's good. But in terms of the Coliseum, they need to be careful with that one how those renovations benefit the university versus making the stadium Olympic-ready.

Last. I'm not sure people realize how many venues LA has. Previous Olympics in LA have been woven into the city's fabric. Sport is alive and thriving in LA. So much so that there is a list of major venues that are all new or heavily renovated since 1984. LA of 2024 is not LA of 1984. LA is more urban, it's more public transit, more density, more diverse. An LA of 2024 would be more like a Beijing of 2008. A coming out party. LA would showcase itself as an urban riverfront city with public transit. I struggle to think anybody would expect that and regardless of this Bid, LA is doing this on its own. I can't say that Paris is not a strong contender or a front runner, but if Paris doesn't offer more than the expected Paris, LA might swoop in for the win. I don't think anybody is expecting this, and from the video LA 24 has put out I think this is what they're going for. Literally, a city reinvented.

No question a lot has changed in LA since `84 and this new bid plan is evidence of that. Don't know I'd call it a city being reinvented, especially in comparison to Beijing and China. Those truly were a coming out party. LA is still about Hollywood and the entertainment industry, so I don't think the same argument can be made that LA is that fundamentally different. But certainly part of their story can be what has been changed and revitalized since their last Olympics and it is definitely a compelling argument. Whether it's enough remains to be seen.

[mr.bernham]

Wait...are we still playing around with the idea that the US could maybe beat Paris for 2024...even after South Africa said they're out for 2024 and 2028? I think it's pretty clear at this point that if Paris makes it to July 2017, they will win and the US will get the 2028 Games.

[Quaker2001]

Wait...are we still playing around with the idea that the US could maybe beat Paris for 2024...even after South Africa said they're out for 2024 and 2028? I think it's pretty clear at this point that if Paris makes it to July 2017, they will win and the US will get the 2028 Games.

But seriously.. yes, Paris is probably going to win. Far from a done deal. Not impossible to imagine Los Angeles winning this, especially if Paris isn't all they're cracked up to be. The US could maybe beat Paris. Considering some of the nonsensical bullshit some people here want to discuss, the concept of LA beating Paris is 1 of the more sane ideas out there.

[FYI]

But seriously.. yes, Paris is probably going to win. Far from a done deal. Not impossible to imagine Los Angeles winning this, especially if Paris isn't all they're cracked up to be. The US could maybe beat Paris.

The problem with this line of thinking, though, is that it totally negates the rest of the competition. Or did some already forget that Hamburg & Rome are also in the 2024 picture (I won't even bother with Budapest). No, it's "not impossible" to imagine Los Angeles winning this. But then again, it's also not impossible to see Hamburg & Rome win this, either.

I believe some are already (& prematurely) looking at this as only Paris vs L.A. (& I think that's mainly coming from the L.A. camp here), but let's not talk about 2024 as if somehow Hamburg & Rome are that insignificant & just brush them aside like some sort of Baku or Doha, that even if Paris wasn't "all they're cracked up to be" (which is quite disingenuous anyway, considering how many times they've already done this, & the last time losing by technically less than four votes). that Los Angeles would then so easily swoop in there & steal the show. That's also far from a done deal.

[zekekelso]

While both my head and heart are convinced that a good Paris bid will win, there's this annoying little fact that Paris keeps bidding, and keeps losing.

[FYI]

Here's another 'annoying little fact' - both times Los Angeles has "won", it was by default. Heck, even the USOC nomination this time around was pretty much by default. So unless Europe plans to drop out again, Los Angeles has a good uphill battle in front of them.

[Quaker2001]

The problem with this line of thinking, though, is that it totally negates the rest of the competition. Or did some already forget that Hamburg & Rome are also in the 2024 picture (I won't even bother with Budapest). No, it's "not impossible" to imagine Los Angeles winning this. But then again, it's also not impossible to see Hamburg & Rome win this, either.

I believe some are already (& prematurely) looking at this as only Paris vs L.A. (& I think that's mainly coming from the L.A. camp here), but let's not talk about 2024 as if somehow Hamburg & Rome are that insignificant & just brush them aside like some sort of Baku or Doha, that even if Paris wasn't "all they're cracked up to be" (which is quite disingenuous anyway, considering how many times they've already done this, & the last time losing by technically less than four votes). that Los Angeles would then so easily swoop in there & steal the show. That's also far from a done deal.

I'm not buying Rome. Their odds of winning are certainly higher than 0% but I don't see them putting a package together that wins this for them. Hamburg I don't know as much about. They'll be in there, but not sure how much support they'll have.

You're right that this is more than a 2 horse race, but it is interesting seeing the rhetoric here where some think it's Paris as the front-runner and others consider it to be LA. Don't see too many people making similar claims about either Hamburg or Rome. Certainly doesn't put them on a level of Baku or Doha Bakoo-koo or Doha-ha (you didn't do it, so someone had to). But I don't believe anyone thinks that.

And yes, I know Paris has prior experience and they came tantalizingly close before. But if my analysis is disingenuous, it almost makes it sound like your counter-point is that because they came so close last time, they should be expected to have as good if not a bid better this time around. Too early in the game to know how the chips will fall and it could go either way. If Paris has issues along the way, then no, LA will not "easily" swoop in. Which is why I said Not impossible to imagine Los Angeles winning this and The US could maybe beat Paris. You're attaching the word "easily" to that. I'm merely putting it out there as a possibility in response to a poster who thinks Paris has already won and Los Angeles has already lost.

[Quaker2001]

While both my head and heart are convinced that a good Paris bid will win, there's this annoying little fact that Paris keeps bidding, and keeps losing.

There's also the facts that the 1992 vote was essentially rigged against them or else they might well have won. 2008 was simply bad timing. And 2012 was a narrow defeat at the hands of their long-time European rival. None of those hurdles are present this time around. I get the mindset from Parisians and others rooting for a win that they've tried and failed multiple times. But that minutiae (and it is minutiae.. past losses mean little to nothing in the context of 2024) shouldn't discourage them. If they lose this one, then they certainly need to take a step back and wonder what they're doing wrong. They would hardly be the first city though to bid multiple times, have lost multiple times, and eventually pulled off a win.

[FYI]

I'm not buying Rome. Their odds of winning are certainly higher than 0% but I don't see them putting a package together that wins this for them. Hamburg I don't know as much about. They'll be in there, but not sure how much support they'll have.

Don't know how much support they'll have? The DOSB & CONI are two of the most influential NOC's within the IOC, & I'm sure that they won't get looked over so easily. Not to mention, especially in Germany's case, is a European financial & sport powerhouse that'll give them some advantages. And Rome may not deliver a good package, but since when does the "package" alone win it for anyone. Albeit, their chances may not look as good as L.A.'s & even Hamburg's, but to concur with a couple of other prominent posters here, I believe that all L.A., Hamburg & even Rome, will be dueling it out for second place.

You're right that this is more than a 2 horse race, but it is interesting seeing the rhetoric here where some think it's Paris as the front-runner and others consider it to be LA. Don't see too many people making similar claims about either Hamburg or Rome.

Well, could that be because there aren't as many prominent German & Italian posters on these boards as there are Americans? And for the Paris 'rhetoric', I see those as the real objective observations since even the French on these boards are more pessimistic about their own chances than not.

And yes, I know Paris has prior experience and they came tantalizingly close before. But if my analysis is disingenuous, it almost makes it sound like your counter-point is that because they came so close last time, they should be expected to have as good if not a bid better this time around. Too early in the game to know how the chips will fall and it could go either way.

Ummm, Beijing, PyeongChang & even Athens (although their loss was by a larger margin, but they came back to win it with by just as much of a margin)? So no, not really "too early in the game" to have a *good indication* of where the chips are likely to fall. I know that you love to play devils advocate a lot of time, but there comes a point where even that is no longer being that objective.

If Paris has issues along the way, then no, LA will not "easily" swoop in. Which is why I said Not impossible to imagine Los Angeles winning this and The US could maybe beat Paris. You're attaching the word "easily" to that. I'm merely putting it out there as a possibility in response to a poster who thinks Paris has already won and Los Angeles has already lost.

And I didn't mean that to be in reference about your post, but in terms of the L.A. camp, who seem to think that if Paris were to falter in anyway, that L.A. would somehow be automatically right behind them to pick up the pieces.

[StefanMUC]

Uhm, I personally think DOSB is run by amateurs, fools and ignorants only worried about their own careers. The whole organisation was basically set up to help Bach get what he always wanted and ever since that was achieved, they've been running around like headless chicken (cue: carelessness in Munich referendum, denial regarding the conflict with the Euro 2024 bid...). I doubt they're really influential in IOC circles, and Bach has no stakes in Hamburg as JAS had in Barcelona.

[FYI]

^Boy, that sounds an awful lot like the USOC as well! See Boston 2024 for starters lolz!

[woohooitsme83]

Basically:

Paris is in Europe. The IOC really likes Europe. Europe doesn't like the IOC. Paris is giving them a chance. Paris is in Europe. The IOC wants Europe to like them. Paris it the IOC's chance for Europe to like them.

Paris hasn't hosted since 1924. LA hasn't hosted since 1984. By 2024, Europe would have been skipped for 12 years. The America's would have 8 years (since the IOC considers them to be one).

LA's plan can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/276070799

[FYI]

Yeah, sentiment alone don't win bids. But guess what, neither does technical merit alone either. You can have the "best technical" bid that there possibly could be (which that in itself could be subjective), but if the IOC isn't interested in you in the first place, then you can have all of the "technical data" in the world & it would mean diddly squat in the end. And if that's all that L.A. has to offer, "we have the best technical plan", then they're gonna be in for a rude awakening.

Besides, you really think that Paris & France as a whole are such amateurs & aren't gonna give this their all. They've done this a few times already, & are going to come up with the best possible plan that can work for them & the Olympics. So it's not like they're gonna be shooting in the dark.

They've also already addressed that "sappy stories" & being considered a 'front-runner' are the last things on their mind right now. They are going to focus on their strengths & on their campaign to try & win. You make it sound as if L.A. has all of their T's crossed & I's dotted & that Paris is relying solely on a "sappy story". Well, they don't. There's still several unanswered questions as far as L.A.'s bid is concerned as well. So don't make it seem like it's such a disparity between the two in favor of L.A. Cuz that couldn't be further from the truth.

[Nacre]

The specifics for all of the bids are still not locked down, and cities usually change things even after winning the right to host. But basically:

1) Paris has an excellent metro system, and almost all venues will be accessible through the Paris Metro. A few like sailing will take place in other parts of France.

2) Paris has almost all of the venues they need. They just need to build the aquatics center and the athletes village.

3) Paris is proposing a budget a bit larger than Los Angeles ($6.8b vs $5b for LA), and the national government will guarantee the costs.

Los Angeles has superior facilities for revenue sports (stadiums and arenas for MLB, NBA, NHL, etc) but inferior non-revenue sports venues (track and field, cycling, equestrian, etc) and a few revenue sports like tennis. The problem for American bids is that the NFL, MLB, etc don't have votes in the IOC. (And baseball isn't in the Olympics at all.) Meanwhile the "small" sports like rowing and archery that get government money from European countries like France do have votes.

In the near future Los Angeles may get a new NFL stadium in the city, but PSG are probably going to build a new stadium (or a massively upgraded one) in Paris as well, so that is probably a wash.

Some basic info:

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/06/23/paris-2024-bid-details-budget-plan-announcement-timed-with-boston-2024s-slalom-canoe-venue-release-video/

I know the technical plan for LA, and I know the sentimental plan for Paris. I am not really interested in the boo boo Paris hasn't hosted or Europe needs a hug story. It's been worn out. I'm interested in technical data. What is the budget and where are the venues. Transportation wise how will they connect. The media center, athletes village and stuff like that. I know the sappy story but sappy stories don't win bids alone. For the purpose of examining data that pertains to the bid not sentiment.

The issue is not sentiment, but self-interest and geopolitics.

Western Europe is on the verge of revolt from the IOC. The IOC needs to do SOMETHING to convince people in France, Germany, Norway, etc that the Olympics are still worthwhile. That does not mean they will automatically give the games to a European bid. But a Paris Olympics is the easiest way for them to try to win back the love of people in Western Europe.

I don't think anyone has said that Paris is guaranteed to win. But many people in Los Angeles have forgotten that the city has only hosted twice because they were the only bidders for 1932 and 1984. The IOC rejected them all of the seven other times Los Angeles bid against another city. Even in an average Olympic race the IOC has strongly favored European bids over American bids, and this time they have many reasons to pick Europe over any other continent.

[baron-pierreIV]

I don't think anyone has said that Paris is guaranteed to win. But many people in Los Angeles have forgotten that the city has only hosted twice because they were the only bidders for 1932 and 1984. The IOC rejected them all of the seven other times Los Angeles bid against another city. Even in an average Olympic race the IOC has strongly favored European bids over American bids, and this time they have many reasons to pick Europe over any other continent.

That's pretty much what I stated on LA-24's Facebook page.

[Dakooo]

Paris hasn't hosted since 1924. LA hasn't hosted since 1984. By 2024, Europe would have been skipped for 12 years. The America's would have 8 years (since the IOC considers them to be one).

LA's plan can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/276070799

The IOC as a body treats the Americas as one because a guys in 1896 said there would be five rings instead of six. The IOC doesn't vote. Members of it do. And almost everybody in the world thinks that North America shouldn't be out with the south just to make facts sound better.

[Rob2012]

I know the technical plan for LA, and I know the sentimental plan for Paris. I am not really interested in the boo boo Paris hasn't hosted or Europe needs a hug story. It's been worn out. I'm interested in technical data. What is the budget and where are the venues. Transportation wise how will they connect. The media center, athletes village and stuff like that. I know the sappy story but sappy stories don't win bids alone. For the purpose of examining data that pertains to the bid not sentiment.

Bear in mind that LA had to go through a domestic bid process prior to (eventual) selection, something Paris hasn't had to do. For this reason American bids always have a head-start when it comes to detailed proposals at this very early stage.

The technical details for Paris will come, don't worry. The city that came top of the technical evaluations in the 2012 process is certainly not going to rely solely on sentiment!