Sara Senatore: Great. Thank you. First a clarification, which is you talked about the cadence of pricing over the course of the year, is it fair to assume that you’re thinking the cadence input inflation will follow suit in the sense of kind of rolling off over the course of the year or is there a reason to believe that maybe the math — the gap between pricing and inflation might look different and therefore the implications from margins might be different over the course of the year. So that’s the first question and then I’ll have another one Ruth’s, please.
Raj Vennam: Hey Sara. Great question. As we think about inflation, we don’t expect the cadence to be significantly different. I think we have a little bit more in the first quarter, but not a huge difference. We’re talking about 50 basis points to 60 basis points may be different from quarter-to-quarter. So that 3% to 4% range is what we provided for the overall. You can expect first quarter to be closer to 4% and then the other quarters might be close — a little bit less than that. But then, there’s really not a meaningful difference between quarters. So that would imply that year-over-year, there is a little bit of delta in pricing versus inflation, because we are starting with a higher price as we get out of Q4 — where we exited the Q4 levels. So, I know you also said you had a second question. So I’ll wait for that.
Sara Senatore: Yeah. Thank you. And then actually, just to clarify on that one and then I’ll ask the question, which is, is the implication that by the fourth quarter, you’ll be needing to find more productivity gains or something else if you have less price but sort of level loaded inflation over the course of the year.
Raj Vennam: Yeah. I think we do expect the gap to reverse by the time we get to the back half. In fact, the way we look at — when we look at our quarterly earnings that are embedded in our guidance, the cadence, while it’s more balanced than last year, we do see Q2 providing the highest-growth while Q4 providing the lowest from an earnings standpoint and Q1, Q3 more in line with the annual growth that we provided.
Sara Senatore: Okay. Thank you very much. And then just a question. I know Rick you said, you’ve only had Ruth’s for eight days. But presumably, there’s a lot of diligence that went ahead of that. So I know you mentioned $20 million roughly by the end of fiscal 2025 primarily coming through supply chain and G&A. If I look at the restaurant-level margins for Ruth’s versus like your Fine Dining, is that — is supply chain and cost of goods is that the primary difference as I think about the potential to bridge that gap.
Rick Cardenas: Well, we’ve said in the past that most of our G&A — most of our synergies come from G&A and supply chain. So, when we have in the past that it’s about half-and-half whenever we done acquisitions before. So yes, Ruth’s should get in the long term benefits from cost-of-sales. Now that said, we may reinvest some of those cost-of-sales and our other brands will get some of the benefits too. So it won’t all flow to Ruth’s. I will say that there aren’t many brands in the industry that we could acquire that actually improve our EBITDA margin at the restaurant-level and Ruth’s does. So, across Darden. Now they might not be as high depending on how you look at it as Capital Grille, they might be higher, a little bit lower depending on your definition of restaurant margin. But they’re pretty close. And so and because Capital Grille is higher than Darden’s average margin, Ruth’s helps Darden’s margin. So that’s a pretty good deal for us.
Sara Senatore: I see. Thank you both so much. Very helpful.
Rick Cardenas: Sure.
