Vulcan Flame Grill — Financial Plan
Key assumptions, the projected income statement, balance sheet and cash flow, the revenue and EBITDA-margin trajectory, the store-economics build, the returns and the funding plan.
Section 18 · Business Plan
Financial Plan
Key assumptions, the projected income statement, balance sheet and cash flow, the revenue and EBITDA-margin trajectory, the store-economics build, the returns and the funding plan.
This section presents the integrated five-year financial projections.
Headline revenue and EBITDA are the sponsor’s; all derived metrics — net
profit, the balance sheet, cash flow, debt-service coverage and returns
— have been independently re-derived on a deliberately conservative
basis. The three-statement model balances to zero in every projection
year.
18.1 Key modelling assumptions
| Assumption | Basis | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate tax | 27% | Prevailing SA corporate rate |
| Senior debt cost | 12.25% (prime + ~2%) | Prime ~10.25% at repo 6.75% |
| Debt structure | R30m, 3-yr grace, 6-yr tail | Matched to ramp; lender-friendly |
| Depreciation | Fit-out 8y, kitchen 6y, tech 3y | Straight-line, conservative lives |
| Franchise-fee amortisation | 10 years | Aligned to franchise term |
| Food cost | 32–33% of revenue | QSR benchmark; improves with scale |
| Royalty + brand marketing | 11% of revenue | Famous Brands franchise levy |
| Four-wall EBITDA margin | 18% → 27% | Matures as units season |
| Working capital | Modestly supplier-financed | QSR norm: low AR, 30-day AP |
| Surplus cash yield | 5.5% | Money-market, conservative |
Table 22. Principal assumptions underpinning the financial
model.
18.2 Capital requirements & funding
The R85 million programme funds franchise fees, store fit-outs,
kitchen equipment, technology, working capital, marketing launch and a
contingency reserve. It is funded by a blend of institutional equity,
senior debt and founder capital.
| Use of funds | R million | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| Franchise & joining fees | 6 | 7% |
| Store fit-outs & leasehold | 42 | 49% |
| Kitchen equipment | 12 | 14% |
| Technology infrastructure | 3 | 4% |
| Working capital & pre-opening | 12 | 14% |
| Marketing launch | 5 | 6% |
| Contingency reserve | 5 | 6% |
| Total capital required | 85 | 100% |
Table 23. Use of funds.
| Source of funds | R million | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| Equity investment | 45 | 53% |
| Senior debt | 30 | 35% |
| Founder capital | 10 | 12% |
| Total funding | 85 | 100% |
Table 24. Source of funds.
Equity leads the proof-of-model phase (R40m drawn at inception; R15m
at the start of Year 3). Senior debt is advanced in two tranches (R10m
at inception; R20m at the start of Year 3), matched to validated
trading. This sequencing minimises idle capital and aligns lender risk
with proven cash flows.
18.3 Revenue model & operating cost structure
Revenue rises from R34m in Year 1 to R248m in Year 5 as the network
scales to twelve stores and the format mix shifts toward higher-volume
sites. The implied mature average unit volume of roughly R20.7 million
per store is demanding relative to the Steers benchmark of approximately
R12–R15 million — the single most important assumption in this Plan.
| R million | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 34.0 | 68.0 | 122.0 | 186.0 | 248.0 |
| Food & packaging | (11.2) | (22.4) | (39.6) | (59.5) | (79.4) |
| Restaurant labour | (6.5) | (12.6) | (22.0) | (32.5) | (42.2) |
| Royalties & brand marketing | (3.7) | (7.5) | (13.4) | (20.5) | (27.3) |
| Occupancy & utilities | (3.7) | (6.8) | (11.0) | (15.8) | (19.8) |
| Other store operating costs | (2.7) | (4.8) | (6.7) | (8.4) | (12.4) |
| Restaurant-level EBITDA | 6.1 | 13.9 | 29.3 | 49.3 | 67.0 |
| Central platform overhead | (1.9) | (3.4) | (5.3) | (8.3) | (12.0) |
| Group EBITDA | 4.2 | 10.5 | 24.0 | 41.0 | 55.0 |
Table 25. Revenue-to-EBITDA build (four-wall vs group).
| R million | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EBITDA margin | 12.4% | 15.4% | 19.7% | 22.0% | 22.2% |
| Four-wall margin | 18.0% | 20.5% | 24.0% | 26.5% | 27.0% |
| Stores (year-end) | 3 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 |
| Avg unit volume (R’m) | 11.3 | 11.3 | 15.2 | 18.6 | 20.7 |
Table 26. Key operating ratios.
18.4 Projected income statement
Net profit is re-derived conservatively: full depreciation and
amortisation, full financing cost net of interest income on surplus
cash, and 27% corporate tax with assessed-loss carry-forward.
| R million | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group EBITDA | 4.2 | 10.5 | 24.0 | 41.0 | 55.0 |
| Depreciation | (2.1) | (4.1) | (5.5) | (6.6) | (7.8) |
| Amortisation | (0.1) | (0.3) | (0.4) | (0.5) | (0.6) |
| EBIT | 2.0 | 6.1 | 18.1 | 33.9 | 46.6 |
| Net interest expense | (1.2) | (1.2) | (3.7) | (3.4) | (2.8) |
| Interest income | 2.5 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.7 | 6.0 |
| Profit before tax | 3.2 | 6.8 | 18.4 | 35.2 | 49.9 |
| Taxation (27%) | (0.9) | (1.8) | (5.0) | (9.5) | (13.5) |
| Net profit after tax | 2.3 | 5.0 | 13.4 | 25.7 | 36.4 |
Table 27. Projected income statement (base case, conservative
re-derivation).
| R million | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net margin | 6.9% | 7.3% | 11.0% | 13.8% | 14.7% |
| Memo: sponsor-stated net profit | 1.4 | 5.8 | 14.0 | 25.0 | 37.0 |
Table 28. Net margin and comparison to sponsor figures.
18.5 Projected balance sheet
The balance sheet ties to zero in every year. Asset growth is driven
by the deployment of store fit-outs and kitchen equipment and by
accumulating cash; the liability side reflects the amortising senior
facility and growing retained earnings.
| R million | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & equivalents | 39.1 | 33.0 | 77.2 | 94.7 | 124.5 |
| Receivables | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 3.4 |
| Inventory | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 2.6 |
| Property, plant & equipment (net) | 12.2 | 22.3 | 26.3 | 29.2 | 30.9 |
| Intangibles (net) | 1.4 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 4.0 |
| Total assets | 53.5 | 59.6 | 109.6 | 132.1 | 165.5 |
| Trade & other payables | 1.1 | 2.2 | 3.8 | 5.6 | 7.5 |
| Senior debt | 10.0 | 10.0 | 30.0 | 25.0 | 20.0 |
| Shareholders’ equity | 42.3 | 47.3 | 75.8 | 101.5 | 137.9 |
| Total equity & liabilities | 53.5 | 59.6 | 109.6 | 132.1 | 165.5 |
Table 29. Projected balance sheet (R million). Balances tie to
zero each year.
18.6 Projected cash flow statement
Operating cash flow turns strongly positive as the network matures,
comfortably funding the later expansion waves and building a substantial
liquidity buffer by Year 5.
| R million | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating cash flow | 4.9 | 9.7 | 19.6 | 33.1 | 45.3 |
| Investing (capex) | (15.8) | (15.8) | (10.5) | (10.5) | (10.5) |
| Financing (draws less principal) | 50.0 | 0.0 | 35.0 | (5.0) | (5.0) |
| Opening cash | 50.0 | 39.1 | 68.0 | 77.2 | 94.7 |
| Closing cash | 39.1 | 33.0 | 77.2 | 94.7 | 124.5 |
Table 30. Projected cash flow statement (R million).
18.7 Debt schedule & debt-service coverage
| R million | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opening debt | 0.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 30.0 | 25.0 |
| Drawdowns | 10.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Principal repaid | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | (5.0) | (5.0) |
| Interest | (1.2) | (1.2) | (3.7) | (3.4) | (2.8) |
| Closing debt | 10.0 | 10.0 | 30.0 | 25.0 | 20.0 |
Table 31. Senior debt schedule (R million).
| R million | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFADS | 2.7 | 7.3 | 16.6 | 27.8 | 36.6 |
| Debt service | 1.2 | 1.2 | 3.7 | 8.4 | 7.8 |
| DSCR (×) | 2.17× | 5.95× | 4.51× | 3.32× | 4.71× |
Table 32. Debt-service coverage (base case).
Minimum base-case DSCR is 2.17×, against a typical 1.25× covenant
floor. Even under the severe stress scenario, modelled DSCR never falls
below 1.43× — a direct consequence of the platform’s light leverage and
grace structure.
18.8 Scenario & sensitivity analysis
Because the binding risk is top-line, the model is stressed primarily
on volume. Two downside cases are presented: a conservative case (18%
AUV haircut, 150bps margin compression) and a severe stress case
(rollout delayed to eight stores, 30% revenue shortfall, 300bps margin
compression).
| Year 5 metric | Base | Conservative | Severe stress |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue (R’m) | 248 | 203 | 174 |
| EBITDA (R’m) | 55 | 42 | 33 |
| EBITDA margin | 22.2% | 20.7% | 19.2% |
| Net profit (R’m) | 36.4 | 22.6 | 16.2 |
| Minimum DSCR | 2.17× | 2.01× | 1.43× |
Table 33. Year 5 outcomes across three scenarios.
18.9 Year 1 monthly profile
Year 1 is the highest-risk period, as three stores open sequentially
and ramp to maturity. The monthly profile below illustrates the cash
trajectory underpinning the working-capital and contingency
provisions.
| R million | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 0.83 | 1.00 | 1.16 | 1.33 | 2.33 | 2.66 |
| EBITDA | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.18 | 0.22 |
| R million | M7 | M8 | M9 | M10 | M11 | M12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 3.00 | 3.17 | 4.17 | 4.50 | 4.84 | 5.01 |
| EBITDA | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.57 | 0.62 |
Table 35. Year 1 monthly revenue and EBITDA build (R
million).
18.10 Investor returns
Equity returns are modelled on the phased equity draw (R55 million
total) with an exit at Year 5 on an EV/EBITDA basis, net of residual
debt. A sensitivity across exit multiples is presented for both the base
and conservative cases.
| Exit basis | 5.0× | 6.0× | 7.0× | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base case — equity IRR | 52% | 57% | 61% | |
| Base case — equity multiple | 6.9x | 7.9x | 8.9x | |
| Conservative — equity IRR | 42% | 47% | 51% | |
| Conservative — equity multiple | 5.0x | 5.8x | 6.6x |
Table 36. Modelled equity IRR and multiple by exit EV/EBITDA
multiple.
On the base case, modelled returns (IRR above 50% at a 6.0× exit;
~7.9× multiple) sit well above the sponsor’s 28–35% target. Under the
conservative case, the IRR still exceeds the upper end of that target.
The sponsor’s stated target is therefore conservative relative to the
embedded operating assumptions. The practical implication: this is an execution-underwriting
decision. If the team can build and mature twelve premium units, returns
are highly attractive; the diligence task is to validate that operating
capability, not to re-test the financing.
Modelled returns should be read as conditional, not promised. They
are highly geared to the average-unit-volume assumption: each R1 million
of mature AUV shortfall across the portfolio reduces Year 5 EBITDA by
roughly its margin contribution and compounds through the exit
valuation. The honest headline is that the deal offers an attractive,
asymmetric equity opportunity protected by conservative leverage —
provided, and only provided, the operating plan is delivered.
Confidential — this business plan is provided to prospective investors and lenders for evaluation purposes only and may not be reproduced or distributed without the written consent of Vulcan Flame Grill Holdings (Pty) Ltd.