Overstretching your existing sites to fund expansion isn't a winning strategy
This piece was originally shared on LinkedIn in response to recurring conversations with founders and leadership teams around this topic.
I’m publishing it here as part of an ongoing body of thinking around restaurant strategy, market entry, and operational decision-making.
It’s a short-term fix with long-term consequences, and a mistake I’ve seen time and again:
A new opening takes priority. The best people are pulled onto the new project and central teams are asked to absorb more.
Nobody formally decides to deprioritise the existing estate, but that’s exactly what happens.
The impact is gradual. Performance slips, morale drops, people leave, and the numbers start to force some uncomfortable decisions.
The alternative:
Groups that treat expansion as a separate strand, not something built by stretching what already exists.
When Alshaya planned their move into major US food brands - Shake Shack, Cheesecake Factory, PF Changs - they invested in talent and training years before the first venue opening. They protected the existing business rather than overextending it.
Cheesecake Factory Dubai still has queues 15 years later. The other brands didn't suffer.
That kind of approach requires well-planned financing and a razor-sharp strategy.
As the saying goes, it takes money to buy whiskey.
Stretching your people and hoping for the best isn't a winning plan.
Since first sharing this, I’ve seen the same issue surface repeatedly — particularly with businesses entering new markets or scaling too quickly. The underlying challenge is rarely strategy itself, but how early decisions constrain execution later.