Wonderfully written article. Impeccable research. Premise supported with logic and fact. But, sailing is not the national sport of The Bahamas...period. Shouldn't the national sport of a country be, oh, a sport that is pervasively played by the inhabitants of said country?..be understood by inhabitants of said country? Sailing does not represent that, in fact, the very arguments that the author so, factually, uses to refute the notion of cricket as our national sport can easily be applied to sailing.
At this point, unequivocally, track and field has to be viewed as our national sport. After all, we have reached the highest level of excellence in this discipline, the sport is widely practiced throughout the Commonwealth - by a true representation of the Bahamian demographic - and, I would argue, outside of politics and Junkanoo, is the single greatest source of achievement and inspiration for our country (Golden Girls, Golden Knights, Tommy Robinson, Laverne Eve, Shonell Ferguson, Frank Rutherford, Neville Wisdom (yes!), Tonique Wiliams, Stephen Gardiner, Shaunae Miller, Devynne Charlton, Andretti Bain, Leevan Sands...).

What is really funny is that expect the Tribune, particularly Neil Hartnell to "press more on how 10% came to be a reasonable assessment. Neil is a hack, always has been, and the Tribune is just a tiny notch above The Punch.

The nonsense you spewing, you could only be Brent.

Thank you Akbar! Apologists like licks2 trying to rewrite history.
And I feeling VAT too.

Licks2 I have no issue engaging you, and I can do it without the little childish name calling. I will gently refer you to one of two empirical sources, Michael Cratons A History of The Bahamas, where he clearly establishes that the Magna Carta that you refer to was no obstacle on Sir Roland's quest to curtail, nay, eliminate the black vote. The other source by the way is a book written by Gail North Saunders, a protege of Micahel Craton, but admittedly the name of the book escapes me. Will be happy to revisit this conversation when you read Michaels book.
Btw, in your childish diatribe you fail to address Fweddys other two factual points. I would be happy to further the discussion.

Sir Roland's ghost..is that you?

Oh, Coon, don't be obtuse. You have sense, you should be intelligent enough to understand what Fweddy is saying. SMDH.

Ok, I will bite. According to Fweddy, which by the way can be easily discovered in history, Sir Roland:
a: Refused majority rule (How is Fweddy's comments playing the race card?);
b: Refused to allow women to vote (How is Fweddy playing the race card? Wouldn't this be playing the gender card? I am confused?);
c: Opposed independence (How is Fweddy playing the race card here?);
These are three distinct inarguable facts, that have noting to do with race. So, please stop spewing your propaganda, Brent Symonette, er, I mean gotouunume.

CaptainCoon, your name is quite appropriate.

DaGoobs, agree completely. I guess my only issue is, we don't know the amount of economic benefits that hosting the relays provided. I am all for government spending money if there is a return. The fact that we cant empirically state what the return is (if any) is baffling to me.