Problems › We Need a Business Plan for the Bank › Hotels & Hospitality
A lender is not reading for ambition. They are reading for whether the downside case still services the debt when RevPAR falls below £124.75. Independent hotels carry a specific bind here — £11.4 m capex need against £2.3 m annual free cash flow with fixed costs at £41.2 m. Until that is priced, £124.75 will keep moving for reasons nobody can attribute, and the debate about debt service coverage will stay a matter of opinion.
A lender is not reading for ambition. They are reading for whether the downside case still services the debt when RevPAR falls below £124.75. Independent hotels carry a specific bind here — £11.4 m capex need against £2.3 m annual free cash flow with fixed costs at £41.2 m. Until that is priced, £124.75 will keep moving for reasons nobody can attribute, and the debate about debt service coverage will stay a matter of opinion.
Plans written for lenders fail on the same thing: an optimistic single case with no visible arithmetic tying £72.4 m revenue from 1,980 rooms to the £11.4 m capex need against £2.3 m free cash flow. The reader is trying to establish whether they get paid back if occupancy drops from 67.8 % and a plan with only a good case gives them nothing to test.
What survives scrutiny is a base case with stated assumptions on ADR and occupancy, a downside that is genuinely bad rather than politely reduced, and a clear line from GOP to debt service in both. The upside case matters least.
The second failure is inconsistency — a revenue line that does not reconcile to the 1,980 rooms or working capital that does not move with occupancy. Lenders read these documents for a living and find those quickly.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ The spreadsheet shows £2.3 m annual free cash flow against the £11.4 m capex requirement with fixed costs at £41.2 m.
✓ The projections exist in a spreadsheet nobody outside the business has stress-tested against a RevPAR below £124.75.
✓ There is no downside case, or it is the base case minus ten percent at 67.8 % occupancy.
The move that usually makes it worse. Writing the plan to be persuasive rather than to be checkable, which is the fastest way to lose a reader who checks for a living.
It is for you if you run or finance an independent hotel and you need the document by a deadline set by someone else. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on an independent hotel. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Aldermere Hospitality Group, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — £72.4 m total revenue from 1,980 rooms.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Quick Market Scan · sample company profile
The move. Leverage existing central overhead and owned-asset scale to lock in 6–9 % supplier discounts and energy-price certainty, cutting the fixed-cost ratio from 57 % to 54 % within 18 months.
| Investment required | £180–220 k annual opex (two FTE analysts) plus £50 k one-time hedge setup and legal fees; funded from existing £2.3 m free cash flow. |
| Expected return | Payback within 4–6 months; 5.0–6.4× annual cash-on-cash return once fully ramped (conservative base case). |
| Revenue, year 1 | Cost reduction £0.7–0.9 m (phased implementation from Q2 2027); net GOP uplift £0.5–0.7 m after opex |
| Revenue, year 2 | Full run-rate savings £1.1–1.4 m; GOP margin 27–28 % |
| Revenue, year 3 | Margin sustained at 27–28 %; incremental £0.4–0.6 m cash available for capex or debt reduction |
| Exit criteria | Strategy should be reversed if, within 12 months of launch, (a) realised energy-cost inflation exceeds 10 % versus market or (b) supplier framework discounts fall below 4 % on an annualised basis, OR if cumulative programme opex exceeds £400 k without achieving at least £600 k in verified annual. |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Business Plan Studio, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For independent hotels it works through £124.75, 67.8 %, 25.0 % and £18.1 m, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
Short enough to be read and complete enough to be tested. The financials and the assumptions behind them carry the decision; narrative beyond what is needed to explain them adds risk rather than confidence.
Whether the cash flow services the debt under a case that is not the good one, and whether the numbers reconcile internally. Almost everything else is context for those two.
Match the term of the facility, monthly for the first year. Detail beyond the horizon of the loan signals unfamiliarity rather than rigour.
Materially, yes. £11.4 m capex need against £2.3 m annual free cash flow with fixed costs at £41.2 m — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are £124.75, 67.8 %, 25.0 %, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on £124.75 and 67.8 %. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.
English · Español · Deutsch · Português · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · 日本語 · 한국어 · 中文 · Polski · Svenska · Türkçe · العربية · Tiếng Việt · ไทย · हिन्दी · עברית