ClownLoach wrote: ↑March 16th, 2023, 10:28 pm
On the website they have also posted statements about two specific states, California and Colorado, and they promise for both "No exceptions, no excuses. Kroger will not close any stores, distribution centers, or manufacturing plants as a result of this merger." And "Kroger will not lay off any frontline associates as a result of this merger."
For some reason or another they seem that they want to battle in both of those states for this merger. Wonder why they won't make similar promises to the other states?
What is odd about California is the overlap is only in SoCal and I do not really think it is that severe. I really think they could broker a deal to just divest Food 4 Less and not much else.
Colorado has very serious overlap. I think in the previous Albertsons/Safeway merger the stores that needed to be divested were performing so poorly that they couldn't give them away and they managed to make a deal to not have to divest anything.
I am getting the feeling they want to ram this thing through ahead of schedule. It kind of makes sense- the longer it goes on, the more time the opposition has to organize.
I also enjoy the disclaimers on their statements:
"No exceptions, no excuses. Kroger
will not close any stores, distribution centers, or manufacturing plants
as a result of this merger." What does that mean? If you have a poorly performing store you close it because it is poorly performing, not because of the merger. If you have a manufacturing plant or distribution center that is running under desired capacity, you close it for that reason, not because of the merger.
And "Kroger will not lay off any
frontline associates as a result of this merger." What does that mean? People in the store? What about district/regional? What about distribution center? Truck driver? All the backstage positions. Division office? Private label division?