99 Ranch locations I've been to are all corporate owned (they do have some franchise sites), and have these wide variances in operations still. T&T also seems the least "integrated" into Loblaws vs. the other formats. I think that is deliberate.VibeGuy wrote: ↑November 5th, 2022, 12:57 pm RE:Asian markets
The other big Asian operators are so wildly variable relative to the consistent execution at T&T. I love H-Mart but they are operator dependent to a shocking degree. Same at 99 Ranch - anything from sketchy to excellent. Seafood City, I can’t speak to inter-store consistency but I generally prefer a Chinese, Korean or Japanese mix (see also Uwajimaya).
RE: Loblaw format gap / City Market
Loblaw actually has three Lower Mainland stores like the one in North Van (I’m assuming you’re referring to the City Market on North Lonsdale) - there’s another over at Park Royal, and then one kind of off Broadway and Arbutus. If you dropped any of those format into similar Seattle or Portland neighborhoods they’d succeed.
If you took the average PNW Safeway and swapped out PC for their house brands, you’re right, there wouldn’t be a Loblaw perfect match in Western Canada, but there’s nothing so exotic about the format or scale that Loblaw would be likely to screw it up.
FWIW, I think any objection to a non-union operator would be thoroughly squelched by a well-capitalized ESOP.
In the current political environment, I expect anything divested is going to be required to go to a Union operator full stop. That is going to be question one by the regulators. Is the buyer union and willing to maintain wage/seniority for all employees? No, okay, then, next please.
Recall the history of previous deals:
1. Albertsons/Buttrey late 90's: stores divested to Smiths. Independents complained they did not get a fair shake at the store divests.
2. Albertsons/Lucky later 90's: stores divested in blocks to Certified Grocers (this was solely because of the independents complaining about what happened in the Buttrey deal), Raleys, Ralphs, Stater. Union stores divested to the larger chains remained union if they were union and seniority was honored. Most of the stores divested to independents failed within 2 years.
3. Albertsons/Safeway: 10's: Did not go with Independents due to the tract record of failure. Stores divested to Haggen. Unified Grocers still got the supply business out of Haggen so that big business was happy with the deal. Union agreements were kept in stores that were union, seniority, wage, etc. This was a big "thing" that union stores must remain union to protect the union and the union jobs. And we see what happened...
Could use the Safeway/Alaska Marketplace divests in Alaska as another example... but I don't know if those were Union shops or not. I think the bigger issue there was flat out lack of interested parties in the divest stores.
My guess is in the current "all or nothing" and "my way or the highway" political environment, we are going to see the deal boil down to 1. It must be a Union operator and 2. It must be a stable Union operator (not another Haggen trying to grow 15x overnight). The independents will be knocked out, but they are not a protected class in the current political environment. The Unions are. The problem is I don't know of any large Union operators who can pick these up easily short of Ahold or Loblaw when you get down to it.