Re: Dark Dominicks going unfilled
Posted: January 31st, 2016, 8:19 pm
As for the quick pull-out of Dominick's while Genuardi's was a bit slower, remember Genuardi's had C&S-based warehouses doing the work and they could survive off of that (or even the other C&S-operated warehouse that did the Safeway stores in the East). Dominick's had its own warehouse and couldn't do a slow phaseout like Genuardi's could.
I don't know how much those 19 dark stores would really work though in keeping out market share, or even if they would've been still viable for grocery use. The plan might even be to sell of the higher-valued locations to pay down debt, just as they did with other divisions in the LLC days. Albertsons even renewed a lease for a Florida store (4466, I believe) prior to closing it and eventually sold it to Walmart Neighborhood Market a few years later.storewanderer wrote: It would not surprise me if they started talking while Dominicks was in the process of closing (while other stores had already been making offers on some stores) or very shortly after. This may have motivated Safeway to hold on to more of those properties than they normally would have held on to when "exiting a market." Those empty Dominicks would be very attractive to Albertsons to help keep a competitor out that may impact Jewel and they realized this was a "silent benefit" of buying Safeway.
Honestly, they should've paid attention when Albertsons was selling off stores to the #1 competitors in Florida and Texas, which gave both dark stores to play with (or a monopoly). But I digress...Also the FTC should have studied those dark stores in Chicago and required divesting as necessary. When ABS/ASC merged in 1999 they looked at each company's development sites and even required some sites to be divested off. I feel like the FTC really rubber stamped the Albertsons/Safeway merger.