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.