New Temecula Smart & Final

[CalItalian]

It was NCR hardware but with a touch screen and 10 key pad, but I didn't recognize the software. Primarily white and light blue interface with a touchscreen 10 key in the middle of the screen, that seemed a bit redundant to me. The cashiers were using the physical keypad. Produce PLU issue is really odd, no problem with most items like red leaf lettuce, bulk garlic, bell peppers, but then the PLU for Swiss Chard and Jalapeño peppers weren't standard and they had to look them up. Of course the new cashier didn't know how and the experienced one sent in to train didn't know the numbers for that system, both were 5 digits and started with a 9. Neither one was organic. Whole thing was odd and I asked and she said many PLUs are not used on this system and they have to use the scan book a lot. That's going to get old and fast.

I don't think the register had the keys along the edges of the screen as older NCR hardware used to have, it is definitely a good size touch screen but the shape of those older registers. Come to think of it, I don't think they had self checkout but I could be wrong. They had a large crowd of employees clustered around the front entrance near the registers greeting customers as they entered so I really didn't notice if they did. No offense, I've run many grand openings and it's critical to have every customer greeted and service available to help customers find their items in a new store. But, you don't have to have a large crowd especially many hours after the actual ceremony and crowds have died down. Two or three would be fine but they had at least a dozen people including what appeared to be some regional management standing around patting themselves on the back. Somewhere in the store there's work to be done.

That sounds like the POS they've been using for the past couple of years at least in some stores. It is a strange system. This is the GK Omni POS system. https://www.sap.com/products/crm/omnichannel-pos.html

This is the receipt that system produces.
https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/smart-a ... 4U9m0box2A

Were they allowed to hand key the PLUs for the peppers at all or did they have to "scan" it? I wonder if this is deliberate to force the cashier to look at the photos of the various peppers and select the correct one instead of assuming every pepper is either a jalapeno or an anaheim/serrano or some other cheap one...

I don't think it looked like that on the screen. It was very plain looking with minimal light blue color.

The receipt is slightly different too although it does sort by category and quantity.

They were allowed to hand key the PLU from the book. I just thought it was bizarre that they are not using the industry standard ones that are on produce stickers all the time. I do wonder if this store is testing a larger assortment of produce and that has something to do with it, maybe not all the PLU codes were set up yet? Or they have some other IT work in progress but they just had to get the store open? Even the head cashier from another store who was helping seemed to be surprised. When I was leaving they were having trouble with the register at another lane. Something definitely not ready for prime time that should have been resolved before a Grand Opening in one of the most competitive little areas I can name in SoCal.

The produce selection is better than the remodeled Stater Bros down the street which for some strange reason feels like they reduced the display sizes. I don't think they had an official grand opening at Stater yet even though it appears all construction is done, but the store does not feel "finished" for some reason after walking in more detail especially produce which feels like it's missing several islands or something. Actually it feels like S&F had more produce than Sprouts and were on par with Ralphs and Albertsons. Never seen quite so much produce selection in a S&F, it's a noticeable difference between some of the other newer converted grocery stores like Tustin and this one. I'm just concerned I saw some spoiled stuff and now had some spoil which is odd for a literally brand new day one store. As we know, the California customer is the most fickle in the world (auto correct just changed that to a different six letter F word ending in -Ed, how funny). They have no patience and if their first experience is bad they don't return for a second one as the Haggen folks can tell you. So it's a nice store, has incredible potential, but I have no confidence in their ability to maintain this long-term as there are already cracks showing. If the rumors are true that Costco is going to drop down there too, which honestly I thought were done when they opened Murrieta but I'm hearing them again, it's going to be a rough road for S&F to retain much of a business customer base.

Personally I would have much rather had a Northgate, H-Mart, or 99 Ranch in that location. Maybe I should write a letter to the CEO of C&S about the two local dump Vons stores he's going to receive if the merger goes through and how much he could probably make flipping them to a couple of the above, and how happy we would all be if he did.

Fortunately the Albertsons, Kroger deal has a zero percent chance of passing Judge Adrienne Nelson who was specifically selected to kill it and implement the DOJ and FTC's new merger guidelines.

C&S would not have gotten the Vons in Murrieta, anyway. It has a Vons fuel station. Kroger would have surrendered the Albertsons across the street.

[ClownLoach]

That sounds like the POS they've been using for the past couple of years at least in some stores. It is a strange system. This is the GK Omni POS system. https://www.sap.com/products/crm/omnichannel-pos.html

This is the receipt that system produces.
https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/smart-a ... 4U9m0box2A

Were they allowed to hand key the PLUs for the peppers at all or did they have to "scan" it? I wonder if this is deliberate to force the cashier to look at the photos of the various peppers and select the correct one instead of assuming every pepper is either a jalapeno or an anaheim/serrano or some other cheap one...

I don't think it looked like that on the screen. It was very plain looking with minimal light blue color.

The receipt is slightly different too although it does sort by category and quantity.

They were allowed to hand key the PLU from the book. I just thought it was bizarre that they are not using the industry standard ones that are on produce stickers all the time. I do wonder if this store is testing a larger assortment of produce and that has something to do with it, maybe not all the PLU codes were set up yet? Or they have some other IT work in progress but they just had to get the store open? Even the head cashier from another store who was helping seemed to be surprised. When I was leaving they were having trouble with the register at another lane. Something definitely not ready for prime time that should have been resolved before a Grand Opening in one of the most competitive little areas I can name in SoCal.

The produce selection is better than the remodeled Stater Bros down the street which for some strange reason feels like they reduced the display sizes. I don't think they had an official grand opening at Stater yet even though it appears all construction is done, but the store does not feel "finished" for some reason after walking in more detail especially produce which feels like it's missing several islands or something. Actually it feels like S&F had more produce than Sprouts and were on par with Ralphs and Albertsons. Never seen quite so much produce selection in a S&F, it's a noticeable difference between some of the other newer converted grocery stores like Tustin and this one. I'm just concerned I saw some spoiled stuff and now had some spoil which is odd for a literally brand new day one store. As we know, the California customer is the most fickle in the world (auto correct just changed that to a different six letter F word ending in -Ed, how funny). They have no patience and if their first experience is bad they don't return for a second one as the Haggen folks can tell you. So it's a nice store, has incredible potential, but I have no confidence in their ability to maintain this long-term as there are already cracks showing. If the rumors are true that Costco is going to drop down there too, which honestly I thought were done when they opened Murrieta but I'm hearing them again, it's going to be a rough road for S&F to retain much of a business customer base.

Personally I would have much rather had a Northgate, H-Mart, or 99 Ranch in that location. Maybe I should write a letter to the CEO of C&S about the two local dump Vons stores he's going to receive if the merger goes through and how much he could probably make flipping them to a couple of the above, and how happy we would all be if he did.

Fortunately the Albertsons, Kroger deal has a zero percent chance of passing Judge Adrienne Nelson who was specifically selected to kill it and implement the DOJ and FTC's new merger guidelines.

C&S would not have gotten the Vons in Murrieta, anyway. It has a Vons fuel station. Kroger would have surrendered the Albertsons across the street.

Don't be so sure. The Vons was being walked by buyers with an ACI corporate person when I was in it a week before the C&S deal was announced. Obviously it was C&S people but I didn't know who they were at the time. They are doing absolutely zero maintenance on it other than urgent repairs. They had slapped plain white paint on the walls, left the faded Pre lifestyle graphics, and replaced all the missing and broken floor tiles for the buyers. The air conditioning still doesn't consistently work in every aisle of the store and it has musty odors that I think are a health hazard. It is one of the worst condition stores in the chain. It is leased and coming up on 20 years old, I expect if it doesn't divest it will close at end of lease term for sure. This is despite the fact that they don't have any Ralphs nearby. It is a "token" divest. The Albertsons is newer, larger, in immaculate condition, got converted to concrete floors recently, is being remodeled this Summer (per the Deli Mgr) presumably to shed LLC decor that's still way better and newer than the foul Vons, has a drive thru pharmacy, and does much more business. Since neither one is a required divest they could keep both but obviously aren't going to, the FTC allowed both before and neither went to Haggen. I am assuming their lease is new enough to require continuous operation or immediate severance payment is due to the landlord, because there is no reason whatsoever to operate both sites and the only one getting investment or business is the Albertsons.

Two more supporting examples.
First, in Long Beach there is a Ralphs across the street from Vons and it is a limited competition area. No way they wouldn't already have a store in the divest list as they know they can't keep both. The Vons has a gas station and a busy one at that. We know zero Ralphs are on the new divest list so assume Vons is going and they'll maybe hang a Ralphs Gas sign on the station which is technically a few feet closer to Ralphs anyway.

Second, in Lompoc a twin to the Murrieta Vons with a gas station out front was closed a couple years ago and the Albertsons kept. Vons had gas, and the station was closed.

[storewanderer]

I don't think it looked like that on the screen. It was very plain looking with minimal light blue color.

The receipt is slightly different too although it does sort by category and quantity.

They were allowed to hand key the PLU from the book. I just thought it was bizarre that they are not using the industry standard ones that are on produce stickers all the time. I do wonder if this store is testing a larger assortment of produce and that has something to do with it, maybe not all the PLU codes were set up yet? Or they have some other IT work in progress but they just had to get the store open? Even the head cashier from another store who was helping seemed to be surprised. When I was leaving they were having trouble with the register at another lane. Something definitely not ready for prime time that should have been resolved before a Grand Opening in one of the most competitive little areas I can name in SoCal.

The produce selection is better than the remodeled Stater Bros down the street which for some strange reason feels like they reduced the display sizes. I don't think they had an official grand opening at Stater yet even though it appears all construction is done, but the store does not feel "finished" for some reason after walking in more detail especially produce which feels like it's missing several islands or something. Actually it feels like S&F had more produce than Sprouts and were on par with Ralphs and Albertsons. Never seen quite so much produce selection in a S&F, it's a noticeable difference between some of the other newer converted grocery stores like Tustin and this one. I'm just concerned I saw some spoiled stuff and now had some spoil which is odd for a literally brand new day one store. As we know, the California customer is the most fickle in the world (auto correct just changed that to a different six letter F word ending in -Ed, how funny). They have no patience and if their first experience is bad they don't return for a second one as the Haggen folks can tell you. So it's a nice store, has incredible potential, but I have no confidence in their ability to maintain this long-term as there are already cracks showing. If the rumors are true that Costco is going to drop down there too, which honestly I thought were done when they opened Murrieta but I'm hearing them again, it's going to be a rough road for S&F to retain much of a business customer base.

Personally I would have much rather had a Northgate, H-Mart, or 99 Ranch in that location. Maybe I should write a letter to the CEO of C&S about the two local dump Vons stores he's going to receive if the merger goes through and how much he could probably make flipping them to a couple of the above, and how happy we would all be if he did.

Fortunately the Albertsons, Kroger deal has a zero percent chance of passing Judge Adrienne Nelson who was specifically selected to kill it and implement the DOJ and FTC's new merger guidelines.

C&S would not have gotten the Vons in Murrieta, anyway. It has a Vons fuel station. Kroger would have surrendered the Albertsons across the street.

Don't be so sure. The Vons was being walked by buyers with an ACI corporate person when I was in it a week before the C&S deal was announced. Obviously it was C&S people but I didn't know who they were at the time. They are doing absolutely zero maintenance on it other than urgent repairs. They had slapped plain white paint on the walls, left the faded Pre lifestyle graphics, and replaced all the missing and broken floor tiles for the buyers. The air conditioning still doesn't consistently work in every aisle of the store and it has musty odors that I think are a health hazard. It is one of the worst condition stores in the chain. It is leased and coming up on 20 years old, I expect if it doesn't divest it will close at end of lease term for sure. This is despite the fact that they don't have any Ralphs nearby. It is a "token" divest. The Albertsons is newer, larger, in immaculate condition, got converted to concrete floors recently, is being remodeled this Summer (per the Deli Mgr) presumably to shed LLC decor that's still way better and newer than the foul Vons, has a drive thru pharmacy, and does much more business. Since neither one is a required divest they could keep both but obviously aren't going to, the FTC allowed both before and neither went to Haggen. I am assuming their lease is new enough to require continuous operation or immediate severance payment is due to the landlord, because there is no reason whatsoever to operate both sites and the only one getting investment or business is the Albertsons.

Two more supporting examples.
First, in Long Beach there is a Ralphs across the street from Vons and it is a limited competition area. No way they wouldn't already have a store in the divest list as they know they can't keep both. The Vons has a gas station and a busy one at that. We know zero Ralphs are on the new divest list so assume Vons is going and they'll maybe hang a Ralphs Gas sign on the station which is technically a few feet closer to Ralphs anyway.

Second, in Lompoc a twin to the Murrieta Vons with a gas station out front was closed a couple years ago and the Albertsons kept. Vons had gas, and the station was closed.

The Murrieta Albertsons is on the "the way home" side of the street for many vehicles. The Vons is not. While the Vons has a gas station and maybe it is faster to get in and out of the parking lot, the Albertsons has the superior location. That Vons never should have been built; that was a real estate mistake. As ClownLoach keeps pointing out the Vons is an ideal building for an ethnic grocer; those aren't quite as location dependent and aren't so dependent on "on the way home" traffic. The Albertsons will make a great Ralphs. No use converting the Albertsons to Vons given the "quality" operation Vons has tried to run (into the ground) in the area for the past 20 years.


To get $5 million to unload that Murrieta Vons may be pretty good proceeds for Kroger. But much do you think C&S can sell the gas station for, plus sell the prescription files for, plus sell the lease for?

The Vons "remodel" was a joke- they didn't even install self checkout. I don't think the store has enough volume to be able to staff a register and self checkout all day.

[ClownLoach]

Fortunately the Albertsons, Kroger deal has a zero percent chance of passing Judge Adrienne Nelson who was specifically selected to kill it and implement the DOJ and FTC's new merger guidelines.

C&S would not have gotten the Vons in Murrieta, anyway. It has a Vons fuel station. Kroger would have surrendered the Albertsons across the street.

Don't be so sure. The Vons was being walked by buyers with an ACI corporate person when I was in it a week before the C&S deal was announced. Obviously it was C&S people but I didn't know who they were at the time. They are doing absolutely zero maintenance on it other than urgent repairs. They had slapped plain white paint on the walls, left the faded Pre lifestyle graphics, and replaced all the missing and broken floor tiles for the buyers. The air conditioning still doesn't consistently work in every aisle of the store and it has musty odors that I think are a health hazard. It is one of the worst condition stores in the chain. It is leased and coming up on 20 years old, I expect if it doesn't divest it will close at end of lease term for sure. This is despite the fact that they don't have any Ralphs nearby. It is a "token" divest. The Albertsons is newer, larger, in immaculate condition, got converted to concrete floors recently, is being remodeled this Summer (per the Deli Mgr) presumably to shed LLC decor that's still way better and newer than the foul Vons, has a drive thru pharmacy, and does much more business. Since neither one is a required divest they could keep both but obviously aren't going to, the FTC allowed both before and neither went to Haggen. I am assuming their lease is new enough to require continuous operation or immediate severance payment is due to the landlord, because there is no reason whatsoever to operate both sites and the only one getting investment or business is the Albertsons.

Two more supporting examples.
First, in Long Beach there is a Ralphs across the street from Vons and it is a limited competition area. No way they wouldn't already have a store in the divest list as they know they can't keep both. The Vons has a gas station and a busy one at that. We know zero Ralphs are on the new divest list so assume Vons is going and they'll maybe hang a Ralphs Gas sign on the station which is technically a few feet closer to Ralphs anyway.

Second, in Lompoc a twin to the Murrieta Vons with a gas station out front was closed a couple years ago and the Albertsons kept. Vons had gas, and the station was closed.

The Murrieta Albertsons is on the "the way home" side of the street for many vehicles. The Vons is not. While the Vons has a gas station and maybe it is faster to get in and out of the parking lot, the Albertsons has the superior location. That Vons never should have been built; that was a real estate mistake. As ClownLoach keeps pointing out the Vons is an ideal building for an ethnic grocer; those aren't quite as location dependent and aren't so dependent on "on the way home" traffic. The Albertsons will make a great Ralphs. No use converting the Albertsons to Vons given the "quality" operation Vons has tried to run (into the ground) in the area for the past 20 years.


To get $5 million to unload that Murrieta Vons may be pretty good proceeds for Kroger. But much do you think C&S can sell the gas station for, plus sell the prescription files for, plus sell the lease for?

The Vons "remodel" was a joke- they didn't even install self checkout. I don't think the store has enough volume to be able to staff a register and self checkout all day.

Prescription files just move 250 feet to the Albertsons with the drive thru pharmacy. Easy peasy and no reason to sell them. The gas station does no business and the Vons center is harder to get into. The entire area is crawling with gas stations with more on the way.

I think the only reason it's open is like I said they can shove it into the merger divests as a token effort to increase competition in the area while getting paid $5M for it. And the lease probably has a continuous operation clause that it is severed and the severance fee is due if store is closed before lease term because of the tenants in the center having "required Co-tenant" clauses discounting their rent if the supermarket building is vacant.

If the merger keeps getting delayed and that atrocious Vons lease term expires it's a guaranteed closure. I think my favorite part is that each letter on the 'Vons' sign is a totally different color, the V is completely pink for example yet the pre-lifestyle graphics left over inside are so faded all the color in them is gone and they're sepia toned and sickly looking. They could have at least fixed the sign right by replacing the old neon one with LED to save money on energy and removing the dated "Food & Drug" sign below but obviously they have no intent to stay.

I also think the Walgreens next to the Vons was closure bait until Rite Aid closed both the nice store to the South a couple blocks and the useless new format a mile or so North. Nearly invisible from the street.

It's obvious that they knew they got away with murder here because of the technicalities of one store being in an unincorporated area and thus being ignored by the dummies at the FTC that enabled the Haggen debacle. These two stores both spent almost a decade monopolizing the entrance to French Valley as thousands of new homes went up and in a normal world they both would be fighting to the bloody death to run the best possible stores to fight for all those new customers. But instead they serve as a symbol of the apathy one can expect when the competition is removed, a lost decade for the Vons as it was completely neglected and left for dead. This is Exhibit A why these mergers should be stopped.

[CalItalian]

I don't think it looked like that on the screen. It was very plain looking with minimal light blue color.

The receipt is slightly different too although it does sort by category and quantity.

They were allowed to hand key the PLU from the book. I just thought it was bizarre that they are not using the industry standard ones that are on produce stickers all the time. I do wonder if this store is testing a larger assortment of produce and that has something to do with it, maybe not all the PLU codes were set up yet? Or they have some other IT work in progress but they just had to get the store open? Even the head cashier from another store who was helping seemed to be surprised. When I was leaving they were having trouble with the register at another lane. Something definitely not ready for prime time that should have been resolved before a Grand Opening in one of the most competitive little areas I can name in SoCal.

The produce selection is better than the remodeled Stater Bros down the street which for some strange reason feels like they reduced the display sizes. I don't think they had an official grand opening at Stater yet even though it appears all construction is done, but the store does not feel "finished" for some reason after walking in more detail especially produce which feels like it's missing several islands or something. Actually it feels like S&F had more produce than Sprouts and were on par with Ralphs and Albertsons. Never seen quite so much produce selection in a S&F, it's a noticeable difference between some of the other newer converted grocery stores like Tustin and this one. I'm just concerned I saw some spoiled stuff and now had some spoil which is odd for a literally brand new day one store. As we know, the California customer is the most fickle in the world (auto correct just changed that to a different six letter F word ending in -Ed, how funny). They have no patience and if their first experience is bad they don't return for a second one as the Haggen folks can tell you. So it's a nice store, has incredible potential, but I have no confidence in their ability to maintain this long-term as there are already cracks showing. If the rumors are true that Costco is going to drop down there too, which honestly I thought were done when they opened Murrieta but I'm hearing them again, it's going to be a rough road for S&F to retain much of a business customer base.

Personally I would have much rather had a Northgate, H-Mart, or 99 Ranch in that location. Maybe I should write a letter to the CEO of C&S about the two local dump Vons stores he's going to receive if the merger goes through and how much he could probably make flipping them to a couple of the above, and how happy we would all be if he did.

Fortunately the Albertsons, Kroger deal has a zero percent chance of passing Judge Adrienne Nelson who was specifically selected to kill it and implement the DOJ and FTC's new merger guidelines.

C&S would not have gotten the Vons in Murrieta, anyway. It has a Vons fuel station. Kroger would have surrendered the Albertsons across the street.

Don't be so sure. The Vons was being walked by buyers with an ACI corporate person when I was in it a week before the C&S deal was announced. Obviously it was C&S people but I didn't know who they were at the time. They are doing absolutely zero maintenance on it other than urgent repairs. They had slapped plain white paint on the walls, left the faded Pre lifestyle graphics, and replaced all the missing and broken floor tiles for the buyers. The air conditioning still doesn't consistently work in every aisle of the store and it has musty odors that I think are a health hazard. It is one of the worst condition stores in the chain. It is leased and coming up on 20 years old, I expect if it doesn't divest it will close at end of lease term for sure. This is despite the fact that they don't have any Ralphs nearby. It is a "token" divest. The Albertsons is newer, larger, in immaculate condition, got converted to concrete floors recently, is being remodeled this Summer (per the Deli Mgr) presumably to shed LLC decor that's still way better and newer than the foul Vons, has a drive thru pharmacy, and does much more business. Since neither one is a required divest they could keep both but obviously aren't going to, the FTC allowed both before and neither went to Haggen. I am assuming their lease is new enough to require continuous operation or immediate severance payment is due to the landlord, because there is no reason whatsoever to operate both sites and the only one getting investment or business is the Albertsons.

Two more supporting examples.
First, in Long Beach there is a Ralphs across the street from Vons and it is a limited competition area. No way they wouldn't already have a store in the divest list as they know they can't keep both. The Vons has a gas station and a busy one at that. We know zero Ralphs are on the new divest list so assume Vons is going and they'll maybe hang a Ralphs Gas sign on the station which is technically a few feet closer to Ralphs anyway.

Second, in Lompoc a twin to the Murrieta Vons with a gas station out front was closed a couple years ago and the Albertsons kept. Vons had gas, and the station was closed.

I lived in Lompoc. It isn't a growth area like the Temecula Valley is.
You and a few others keep thinking this deal is going to close. I find that hilarious.

[ClownLoach]

Fortunately the Albertsons, Kroger deal has a zero percent chance of passing Judge Adrienne Nelson who was specifically selected to kill it and implement the DOJ and FTC's new merger guidelines.

C&S would not have gotten the Vons in Murrieta, anyway. It has a Vons fuel station. Kroger would have surrendered the Albertsons across the street.

Don't be so sure. The Vons was being walked by buyers with an ACI corporate person when I was in it a week before the C&S deal was announced. Obviously it was C&S people but I didn't know who they were at the time. They are doing absolutely zero maintenance on it other than urgent repairs. They had slapped plain white paint on the walls, left the faded Pre lifestyle graphics, and replaced all the missing and broken floor tiles for the buyers. The air conditioning still doesn't consistently work in every aisle of the store and it has musty odors that I think are a health hazard. It is one of the worst condition stores in the chain. It is leased and coming up on 20 years old, I expect if it doesn't divest it will close at end of lease term for sure. This is despite the fact that they don't have any Ralphs nearby. It is a "token" divest. The Albertsons is newer, larger, in immaculate condition, got converted to concrete floors recently, is being remodeled this Summer (per the Deli Mgr) presumably to shed LLC decor that's still way better and newer than the foul Vons, has a drive thru pharmacy, and does much more business. Since neither one is a required divest they could keep both but obviously aren't going to, the FTC allowed both before and neither went to Haggen. I am assuming their lease is new enough to require continuous operation or immediate severance payment is due to the landlord, because there is no reason whatsoever to operate both sites and the only one getting investment or business is the Albertsons.

Two more supporting examples.
First, in Long Beach there is a Ralphs across the street from Vons and it is a limited competition area. No way they wouldn't already have a store in the divest list as they know they can't keep both. The Vons has a gas station and a busy one at that. We know zero Ralphs are on the new divest list so assume Vons is going and they'll maybe hang a Ralphs Gas sign on the station which is technically a few feet closer to Ralphs anyway.

Second, in Lompoc a twin to the Murrieta Vons with a gas station out front was closed a couple years ago and the Albertsons kept. Vons had gas, and the station was closed.

I lived in Lompoc. It isn't a growth area like the Temecula Valley is.
You and a few others keep thinking this deal is going to close. I find that hilarious.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote, which ended with "This is Exhibit A why these mergers should be stopped."

However it is fun to try to play the mental chess game of trying to figure out what they would do in each situation. Without that we might as well just close this board now.

[storewanderer]

I lived in Lompoc. It isn't a growth area like the Temecula Valley is.
You and a few others keep thinking this deal is going to close. I find that hilarious.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote, which ended with "This is Exhibit A why these mergers should be stopped."

However it is fun to try to play the mental chess game of trying to figure out what they would do in each situation. Without that we might as well just close this board now.

I think there is a high chance some transaction occurs that impacts some markets.

Particularly markets with a low number of store divests proposed.

I've said before they could push it through in markets like NorCal/Northeast US where there is no overlap easily. But given they only propose ~60 divests in SoCal (at least a few CA divests would be in NorCal), I am wondering if they think they could push the merger through in SoCal too...

[ClownLoach]

I lived in Lompoc. It isn't a growth area like the Temecula Valley is.
You and a few others keep thinking this deal is going to close. I find that hilarious.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote, which ended with "This is Exhibit A why these mergers should be stopped."

However it is fun to try to play the mental chess game of trying to figure out what they would do in each situation. Without that we might as well just close this board now.

I think there is a high chance some transaction occurs that impacts some markets.

Particularly markets with a low number of store divests proposed.

I've said before they could push it through in markets like NorCal/Northeast US where there is no overlap easily. But given they only propose ~60 divests in SoCal (at least a few CA divests would be in NorCal), I am wondering if they think they could push the merger through in SoCal too...

There is a 100% chance, not anything less, that there is a major sale or purchase transaction involving Albertsons.

This is beyond question. Cerberus wants to cash out and they have billions invested.

This is not as easy as an individual shareholder basically calling their broker and putting in a sell order for tomorrow morning. Because of the size and scope of their ownership, controlling interest changes, involvement in the board and management, likely contracts with other Cerberus companies etc. the only effective way to monetize their shares is through a single transaction or series of large transactions. That means some sort of merger or acquisition because of how large their stake is. Even if they could just find one firm that would take their shares "as is" and with no other transactions, the new ownership would surely wish to make massive changes so they get a return on their investment through increased earnings, profits, dividends, balance sheet strength, cash flow and of course the almighty stock price. Doing nothing means none of those things change, thus there will not be any "do nothing" buyer.

The question is what kind of transaction? Obviously the proposed Kroger acquisition of the entire company is not looking like it will happen. But the two most likely outcomes of that deal collapsing will be a private equity buyout or a breakup asset sale, or combination of the two. If taken private, a firm would take them off the market which could have huge effects on the operation. Apollo is the most likely PE buyer and they potentially could merge them with other businesses they own like that Heritage group or even unrelated businesses they control like Michaels and PetSmart in some sort of "Apollo Retail Enterprises" business (kinda like Kmart who at one point also owned Borders, OfficeMax etc). Apollo would demand massive changes to Albertsons including store closures, expense reduction and other potentially negative outcomes. Their reputation for handling of retail assets is not good for the worker or the customer as they send in their expert chainsaw guys to cut expenses to the bone.

A breakup asset sale could still involve Kroger as a buyer, companies we've mentioned like Ahold Delhaize, or others. There could still be a situation where Kroger acquires all of Albertsons operations in some states like California. Or there could become a leaner, smaller primarily Western US based Albertsons that sheds other assets to other companies. Or the Kroger deal is restructured to sell more stores to more or different buyers since C&S is seemingly getting a sweetheart deal that leaves many questions.

California in particular is much less of a problem to resolve overlaps in under the current proposed merger because frankly Kroger has botched their once #1 market position in the state and closed roughly half their mainline stores over the last 20 years while retreating from other areas like Norcal. This makes an acquisition of Albertsons especially important to Kroger because they obviously underestimated their ability to perform in the state and take their market share. So if a breakup is proposed don't be surprised if Kroger attempts to acquire hundreds of California stores and the "C&S" of the deal winds up being the now smaller Albertsons that keeps the overlaps along with the leftovers of most of their Oregon, Washington, and Arizona operations where no merger really can occur with Kroger since they would dominate the market and no other viable competitors exist on a large scale.

No matter what, there will be a deal of some sort because Cerberus is going to sell out. The FTC and Justice Dept and state AGs cannot prevent it, so a deal of some sort is a 100% certainty. The question is who are the players involved, what kind of deal, and what effect will that have on the stores.

That's what we are all here for, the fun of speculating about what that will look like. Some of us will be right and some of us will be wrong about how it shakes out. But there definitely will be some sort of deal in some form as that train has already left the station.

[storewanderer]

Kroger has never had a #1 market position in California. That has been Safeway ever since they day Safeway acquired Vons.

The only thing Kroger had that was remotely "#1" was the fact that the single banner "Ralphs" had a higher store count than any other operator in the state under a single banner. And even that wasn't much higher than the store count of "Albertsons" banner in California after November 1999.

I think Kroger should just leave it in California and not expand further there. That is my opinion. They have botched it multiple times. Old banners long ago, 80's Frys, NorCal Ralphs. A limited territory Ralphs/few and far between statewide F4L seem to work in their current shrunk form and they should be happy about that. Forger trying to expand further in California. Forget the high operating costs, forget trying to operate in cities like San Francisco that want to let citizens sue you if you decide to close a store, just forget further expansion and be happy what you have is profitable for now. There is no growth for these conventional formats in California other than some new store growth out of Safeway NorCal and that is due to the other competitors in NorCal one of whom has publicly stated they are looking to invest outside CA and beyond their core Sacramento market haven't added new stores in quite some time, and the other of whom seems to be sitting around hoping the C&S divest deal falls through so they can swoop in. I guess you have Stater also adding stores in SoCal so again Kroger keeps missing opportunities and a nice large Marketplace Store would be a far better fit than those new Stater Stores are for a lot of those areas too. And I am sure once Kroger gets involved IF they get involved with Safeway NorCal that is going to be the end of any new build stores anywhere in NorCal since Kroger seems to hate building new stores in CA, OR, and WA for some odd reason. However Safeway NorCal generally is getting excellent ROI on these new stores they build so maybe Kroger will let them keep building.

I would almost argue Kroger would be better off trying to acquire Raleys operations in NorCal but that ship has long sailed and as Raleys has shrunk their new store size down, closed random pharmacies, shrunk their drug side, closed most of Food Source (which would have made great FoodsCo conversions), sold their gas stations, wasted time on awful formats like ONE, added questionable at best stores like Scolaris and Bashas, I don't think Kroger would have much interest anyway- it doesn't seem like a good fit at this point.

I think there are too many stronger players in California and what feels like an unlimited number of ethnic players especially down in SoCal who are going to just keep expanding.

I wonder if Albertsons could slim itself down to a footprint that covered only OR, CA, WA, AK, MT, ID, MT, NV, AZ, and maybe keep Jewel and Acme... and keep a portion of Safeway East and roll it into Acme- not keep all of it- how that would look...

So yes that means get rid of TX, NM, Shaws, part of Safeway East, CO, part of WY... some of these are actually some good assets but that is okay- have to get some money to pay out some of the shareholders who want to go away.

[veteran+]

So sad what Kroger has done to Ralphs.

A legacy that started in 1873 and was renowned for its top notch and innovative operations around the nation and indeed even overseas.

I remember when I was at King Soopers (under Dillon) we used to trade management teams with them and share best practices. I know I was very impressed with what I saw.