SA Fried Chicken Co. Business Plan — Management & Organisation

Section 10 · 10 of 18

Management & Organisation

A capital-intensive, multi-site rollout lives or dies on execution capacity. The organisation is built to add stores without adding chaos.

Organisational structure

A lean head-office function — spanning operations, supply chain, finance, marketing and people — supports a regional area-management layer that owns store performance. As the estate grows from ten to fifty outlets, the regional layer scales while head-office cost is held to single-digit percentages of revenue, the discipline that converts scale into operating leverage.

Function

Phase-1 focus

Scale-up focus

Operations

Open & stabilise 10 flagships

Regional area management, express rollout

Supply chain

Stand up commissary & sourcing

Second distribution node, dual-sourcing

Finance

Controls, covenant reporting

Franchise economics, IPO readiness

Marketing

Local recall, loyalty launch

National brand, franchise marketing fund

People

Academy, local hiring

Franchisee training, culture at scale

Performance-management & reporting framework

The Company manages to a defined KPI hierarchy that ties store-floor operations to the covenants that govern the capital structure. Each metric has an owner, a reporting cadence and a threshold that triggers management action — the discipline that lets a leveraged, multi-site operator see problems at the store level before they reach the income statement.

KPI

Owner

Cadence

Target / trigger

Store-level operating metrics

Average unit volume (AUV)

Area manager

Weekly

≥90% of mature-store plan

Store-level EBITDA margin

Area manager

Monthly

≥20% at maturity

Food cost % of sales

Supply chain

Weekly

≤34% (commissary-controlled)

Labour % of sales

Ops

Weekly

≤20% at maturity

Speed of service / throughput

Store manager

Daily

Peak-hour SLA maintained

Commercial & brand metrics

Loyalty-app active members

Marketing

Monthly

Rising repeat frequency

Delivery mix & net commission

Marketing

Monthly

Net drag within budget

Same-store sales growth

Ops / Finance

Monthly

≥5% blended

Capital & covenant metrics

DSCR (rolling)

CFO

Quarterly

≥1.10x covenant floor

Net debt / EBITDA

CFO

Quarterly

≤5.5x covenant ceiling

DSRA balance

CFO

Quarterly

≥6 months debt service

Liquidity runway

CFO

Monthly

≥3 months fixed costs

Governance

A formal board with independent representation is established at Tranche-1 close, with audit and remuneration oversight and a covenant-reporting cadence appropriate to a leveraged, multi-tranche capital structure. Building an audited track record from inception is deliberate — it is the foundation of the eventual IPO or strategic-exit optionality.

Board composition evolves with the capital structure. At Tranche-1 close the board pairs the founding executive with lender- and equity-nominated non-executives and an independent chair; audit and remuneration committees are constituted from the outset rather than retrofitted ahead of a listing. Covenant compliance, DSRA adequacy and brand-traction indicators are standing agenda items, giving providers of capital a direct line of sight into the metrics that gate later tranches. As the estate scales from ten to fifty outlets, the area-management layer is deliberately capped at a span of roughly six to eight stores per regional manager, preserving the operational proximity on which unit-economics discipline depends. Head-office headcount is added only against a defined revenue trigger, holding central cost to single-digit percentages of turnover and converting scale into the operating leverage the returns case relies on.

Analyst flagExecution capacity is the binding constraint

The plan opens, on average, ten stores a year while standing up a commissary, a technology stack and a brand simultaneously. That is an ambitious operational cadence for a young organisation. The governance and area-management structure exists specifically to keep quality and unit economics intact through that pace — but delivery risk, not demand risk, is the most likely reason the plan under-performs, and should be resourced accordingly.