mess of acquisition, page-12

I don't think they have any intent of killing off either name in the short term. Quite simply they saw a good opportunity to pick up a rapidly expanding business in a healthy market segment at a good price. That business is complementary and there is plenty of room for multiple brands in that market.

The additional scale gives them a foot hold and additional pricing leverage that the businesses don't have on their own thus meaning that they can be more profitable.

There are dozens of examples where a public company has maintained multiple competing brands under their own umbrella. It actually creates the perception of competition and choice even if both are owned by the same company and share many of the same suppliers etc. The big supermarket chains did it for many years quite sucessfully. Its simply a case of store positioning to maximise coverage and minimise competing with self. Also some areas will do better with one brand over the other along socio-economic lines etc. Having multiple brands is actually a plus.

They seem to have also recognised that to ensure its continued success they needed to bring on some of the management that was responsible for that business growth. That will drive growth in both brands. Business is largely about people and having the people with the vision, drive and knowhow to build a brand is critical. Recongising that and negotiating to keep them is a sign not of weakness on behalf of management but rather that of strength.

And as for execution, I suspect that management was an opportunity to renegotiate in order to save us money in the long run. Sure it would have been simpler to just settle on the original deal but is "simple" really better ?