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.

Vulcan Flame Grill Business PlanSection 18 › Financial 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.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Allocation of the R85 million capital programme.
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.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Funding structure: ~53% equity, ~35% senior debt, ~12% founder capital.
PHASED, CASH-MATCHED FUNDING

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.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Operating cost structure as a percentage of revenue, showing margin expansion.

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.

ANALYST CALLOUT

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Year 5 earnings bridge from EBITDA to net profit (base case).

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.

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Balance-sheet composition by total assets across the projection.

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).

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Cash generation and liquidity build across the projection.

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).

COVERAGE RESILIENCE

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.

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Debt-service coverage across base, conservative and severe-stress scenarios.

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.

Figure 11.
Figure 11. Revenue under base, conservative and severe-stress scenarios.
Figure 12.
Figure 12. Sensitivity of Year 5 EBITDA to the principal value drivers.

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).

Figure 13.
Figure 13. Year 1 monthly revenue and EBITDA as the first three stores open and ramp.

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.

Figure 14.
Figure 14. Modelled five-year equity IRR by exit multiple, base vs conservative.
READING THE RETURNS

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.

ANALYST CALLOUT

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.