Kroger will also sell Haggen banner to C&S

[ClownLoach]

I think this is worthy of its own thread given the baggage surrounding the Haggen name.

Somehow I missed this before, but it is in the official release:

"Under the amended agreement, Kroger will also sell the Haggen banner to C&S. "

So they are dumping off the QFC, Haggen, and Marianos banners. Arguably these are the most "upscale" banners in the chains.

But the other thing with Haggen is how much overlap is there really? Does it appear the majority of Haggen ends up divested? I never really saw that happening; I always assumed they'd opt to divest the lower quality Safeway/Albertsons units and hold on to the nicer Haggen units.

And then what banner goes on the retained Haggen units. Safeway? Fred Meyer Marketplace? Ugh... those are NOT a fit for Haggen.

I wonder if amending the CA divest agreement and adding more stores to that will come with an agreement to divest the Pavilions banner as well...

Now I wonder if C&S would try to expand the Haggen banner outside its original territory again... that would be... funny. Very funny. Maybe the old signs are all sitting somewhere ready to use.

There are some Pavilions they would never get rid of to C&S. Chains like Gelsons, Bristol Farms, & Whole Foods would pay top dollar. There is a crappy Whole Foods on Fairfax and Santa Monica that would pay top dollar for the Pavilions in West Hollywood. Same thing for the tine Gelsons right down the street. If you think C&S could manager Montecito or Newport Coast I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

They are going to divest whatever FTC and CA AG demand they divest if they want the merger to go through. And they have an agreement to sell the stores to C&S and some sort of formula to determine the price of the stores being sold... the more profitable stores would obviously be sold for higher prices... So back to that if those parties FTC/CA AG tell them they need to divest the West Hollywood Pavilions because there is a Ralphs 1/2 mile away they're going to have to divest it. Maybe they can go to CA AG and tell them you let us have two Ralphs 1/2 mile apart nearby (Fountain/La Brea and Sunset/Fuller) so why not let us have that arrangement here in West Hollywood too but I'm not sure if that argument will help their case or hurt their case.

Of course C&S has made the claim they can manage whatever they get handed of this disjointed and likely spread far apart inconsistent group of divested stores. Just like Haggen did. Haggen thought they could manage San Ysidro and converting the Hispanic focused Lucky/Max Foods into a full price/full cost Haggen was a good idea, actually I think they had no clue what they were even buying and just did whatever. C&S is going to have to put a bit more thought into this since they have multiple banners they can apply.

On Newport Beach I expect the San Miguel Pavilions to be divested and nothing else. Something will get divested in Newport Beach. It should probably be two stores but I expect them to argue it to one store.

Marina Del Rey Pavilions and La Jolla Pavilions I also see as likely divests, but maybe they'll agree to divest a Vons that is over near La Jolla on the opposite side of the freeway in San Diego instead.

Sherman Oaks is an interesting situation. Although only one mile between the Pavilions and Ralphs, you have Gelson's and Whole Foods in the middle of the two. Plus another Whole Foods not too far from the Pavilions. And that is a rather LONG mile separating Ralphs and Pavilions. I think the presence of two Whole Foods may make them argue that it is okay to keep both stores there.

I think the two Malibu stores are far enough apart for both to be kept.

They are paying a flat rate per store which is insane. Do the math from first to second deal. It's $5M a store and change. C&S is stealing these stores if they get the highly profitable ones.

I am sure none of the stores we are naming here are on the C&S list. They can wheel and deal with the FTC one by one but I suspect they'll manipulate it to get rid of less desirable units.

La Jolla has been expanded and redone at top expense all after the merger announcement. It is nowhere near the Ralphs and can take 20 minutes or more to get between those two sites in traffic which is frequent. They are not stupid and would not begin to sink millions into a project of that scale if there was any chance of it being divested. It wasn't new paint and a sign change, it was a full scale remodel the likes of which we rarely see from ACI these days although I wish they did more especially raising the ceiling and a better concrete floor job. The Ralphs is on top of the border of 3 zip codes by a matter of feet by the map I saw so they would have a winning argument the much closer Vons on Regent needs to go. By drive time, demographics, market area the Vons and Ralphs are competitors, the Pavilions stands alone.

[storewanderer]

They are paying a flat rate per store which is insane. Do the math from first to second deal. It's $5M a store and change. C&S is stealing these stores if they get the highly profitable ones.

I am sure none of the stores we are naming here are on the C&S list. They can wheel and deal with the FTC one by one but I suspect they'll manipulate it to get rid of less desirable units.

La Jolla has been expanded and redone at top expense all after the merger announcement. It is nowhere near the Ralphs and can take 20 minutes or more to get between those two sites in traffic which is frequent. They are not stupid and would not begin to sink millions into a project of that scale if there was any chance of it being divested. It wasn't new paint and a sign change, it was a full scale remodel the likes of which we rarely see from ACI these days although I wish they did more especially raising the ceiling and a better concrete floor job. The Ralphs is on top of the border of 3 zip codes by a matter of feet by the map I saw so they would have a winning argument the much closer Vons on Regent needs to go. By drive time, demographics, market area the Vons and Ralphs are competitors, the Pavilions stands alone.

The La Jolla conversion and project were committed before the merger came to be... while they may have known about it internally there seems to be a pretty powerful team at SoCal Albertsons Division in charge of this Pavilions program who gets what they want and has very generous budgets to make it happen.

The other thing is they are supposed to continue things like remodels and new stores "as normal" as this process progresses. A canceled remodel on a divested store would be grounds for a lawsuit from whoever buys the divested store and fails with it and breach the representations made to FTC about maintaining the stores under all past protocols (including remodel decisions) regardless if they are divesting or not.

I think we will see C&S get some desirable units in SoCal.

[ClownLoach]

They are paying a flat rate per store which is insane. Do the math from first to second deal. It's $5M a store and change. C&S is stealing these stores if they get the highly profitable ones.

I am sure none of the stores we are naming here are on the C&S list. They can wheel and deal with the FTC one by one but I suspect they'll manipulate it to get rid of less desirable units.

La Jolla has been expanded and redone at top expense all after the merger announcement. It is nowhere near the Ralphs and can take 20 minutes or more to get between those two sites in traffic which is frequent. They are not stupid and would not begin to sink millions into a project of that scale if there was any chance of it being divested. It wasn't new paint and a sign change, it was a full scale remodel the likes of which we rarely see from ACI these days although I wish they did more especially raising the ceiling and a better concrete floor job. The Ralphs is on top of the border of 3 zip codes by a matter of feet by the map I saw so they would have a winning argument the much closer Vons on Regent needs to go. By drive time, demographics, market area the Vons and Ralphs are competitors, the Pavilions stands alone.

The La Jolla conversion and project were committed before the merger came to be... while they may have known about it internally there seems to be a pretty powerful team at SoCal Albertsons Division in charge of this Pavilions program who gets what they want and has very generous budgets to make it happen.

The other thing is they are supposed to continue things like remodels and new stores "as normal" as this process progresses. A canceled remodel on a divested store would be grounds for a lawsuit from whoever buys the divested store and fails with it and breach the representations made to FTC about maintaining the stores under all past protocols (including remodel decisions) regardless if they are divesting or not.

I think we will see C&S get some desirable units in SoCal.

This is one I still am not going to agree on. The FTC uses multiple methods to determine a market. Sometimes zip codes, sometimes natural barriers, sometimes business and residential districts.

There are only two supermarkets in the La Jolla Cove business district. Pavilions and Gelsons.

The Ralphs and Vons are in the La Jolla Village/University City district. The Ralphs appears to sit on the border of three zip codes. Depending on which driveways a car entering and exiting uses they may pass through three zip codes.

Nobody from the Cove is driving up to the Village to shop. This is not a price conscious customer, they are a filthy rich customer who do not have the time or patience to crawl through half an hour of traffic at prime time to get out of the Cove.

I am simply unsure how divesting the Pavilions would improve competition in a business/residential district where Kroger is not present as a competitor. There is zero customer overlap here.

The Pavilions serves mansions and luxury beachfront residences. The Ralphs serves apartments and high rise condos. The two neighborhoods could not be more different.

The Ralphs serves University City and the Village which is primarily apartments and college students. The recent removal of most of the upscale and premium aspects of the Ralphs is so indicative of their ceding the Cove business to Pavilions and Gelsons far down the hill.

The Vons on Regents also serves University City and is primarily shopped by college students.

The Vons on Regents is an overlap with the Ralphs, and furthermore the area also suffers from limited competition with the forced exit of Bristol Farms which was replaced with a construction fence. The Vons needs to be divested. The Pavilions is not an issue. If both Pavilions and Vons were being asked for divestiture then there would be no improvement in competition really because now C&S would have two stores and Kroger would only have one.

All of these discussions are amusing since we know this thing is getting killed in the courts eventually.

[Super S]

The Haggen name simply does not mean what it once did. The stores would be better off rebranding.

[ClownLoach]

The Haggen name simply does not mean what it once did. The stores would be better off rebranding.

Exactly. Bring on Piggly Wiggly. At least the name will reflect the kind of experience C&S knows how to provide.

[veteran+]

The Haggen name simply does not mean what it once did. The stores would be better off rebranding.

Exactly. Bring on Piggly Wiggly. At least the name will reflect the kind of experience C&S knows how to provide.

SO TRUE!

[marshd1000]

If C&S is actually serious about owning and operating their own supermarkets, as I think I saw on a different thread, maybe they should bring Bob Mariano? He would know how to operate a Haggen. Plus he could improve QFC. While Carrs is basically a Safeway, his expertise wouldn't hurt! Also nobody has even discussed about the Harris Teeter stores that Kroger isn't going to keep? I'm guessing that maybe the Mariano's banner could be introduced into the DC area though some re-bannering of the divested Harris Teeter stores?

[ClownLoach]

If C&S is actually serious about owning and operating their own supermarkets, as I think I saw on a different thread, maybe they should bring Bob Mariano? He would know how to operate a Haggen. Plus he could improve QFC. While Carrs is basically a Safeway, his expertise wouldn't hurt! Also nobody has even discussed about the Harris Teeter stores that Kroger isn't going to keep? I'm guessing that maybe the Mariano's banner could be introduced into the DC area though some re-bannering of the divested Harris Teeter stores?

Mariano's newest concept closed in bankruptcy just this week. There was employee feedback he was not in good health which is why he sold it.

[storewanderer]

If C&S is actually serious about owning and operating their own supermarkets, as I think I saw on a different thread, maybe they should bring Bob Mariano? He would know how to operate a Haggen. Plus he could improve QFC. While Carrs is basically a Safeway, his expertise wouldn't hurt! Also nobody has even discussed about the Harris Teeter stores that Kroger isn't going to keep? I'm guessing that maybe the Mariano's banner could be introduced into the DC area though some re-bannering of the divested Harris Teeter stores?

They have choices:

Piggly Wiggly
QFC
Mariano's
Topps?
Carrs
Sublease to other operators who may have a shot at running the store and insist they use C&S as supplier, see UNFI attempts to sell Shoppers/take back Shoppers stores/close stores/etc etc etc
Sell to Whole Foods or some other competent operator

[retailfanmitchell019]

They have choices:

Piggly Wiggly
QFC
Mariano's
Topps?
Carrs
Sublease to other operators who may have a shot at running the store and insist they use C&S as supplier, see UNFI attempts to sell Shoppers/take back Shoppers stores/close stores/etc etc etc
Sell to Whole Foods or some other competent operator

You’re thinking Top Food & Drug, the dormant Haggen discount banner?

Or they could use this name: https://greeceimages.org/images/topps-d ... ge-road-2/