The fundamental differences are that we talk about real estate, so that would be added in replacing corporation jobs. We'd actually show that there's a tangible asset that will be on the other side of the river. And we'd remove the part saying that there be a strict rule in the signing of competitive leases, simply because strict rules...at least a suggestion has gone forward....
I just don't see the value, if we're removing the portion that is without exception. Because as we've discussed, there's a possibility of an exception in a case where there are no buildings, as an option for that time, but there would always be an intent to move toward that 75-25 allocation.