Financing the Formula One hotel platform
Raising debt across Escapade's Formula One-circuit hotels — Silverstone delivered, Spa-Francorchamps next — and assembling them into one vehicle for an institutional sale.
Escapade builds boutique five-star hotels and residences at the world's iconic Formula One circuits. One is open and trading; a second is signed.
At Silverstone, the 14-acre trackside estate — 60 residences and 184 ensuite keys with a clubhouse, pool and spa — opened in 2024 at a £90M gross development value, sold out on the primary market and trades with a 4.5-star guest rating. That is the proof the model works.
The second project is signed at Spa-Francorchamps: a 68-key five-star hotel beside Eau Rouge and six residences (23 keys) at La Source — 91 rooms, a €30M investment, designed by Gensler, on a long concession from the circuit, opening 2028. The building permit is submitted in September 2026. A third project, at another Formula One circuit in Italy, is in planning at an indicative €60M.
The case for funders is not one hotel — it is a repeatable category. Boutique five-star hotels at iconic Formula One circuits, each on a long concession, each carrying event-anchored demand a generic hotel does not have, proven at Silverstone and scaling to Spa and Italy.
A defensible niche
Trackside sites are scarce and concession-controlled. Race weekends create captive premium demand; year-round programming fills the rest.
Two revenue layers
Residences sold to owners who pool rooms into a managed hotel, plus hotel and food-and-beverage income — the residence sales reduce the debt the project carries.
Built for an exit
Aggregating the assets into one vehicle turns three single hotels into an institutional-grade platform a long-term owner buys at a tighter yield.
Both assets sit inside the circuit perimeter — the location is the product. Spa-Francorchamps in the Belgian Ardennes; Silverstone in the English Midlands, the home of the British Grand Prix.
Silverstone is the evidence base: a delivered asset, a proven sales model, and live trading data that converts the Formula One demand story into an underwrite.
Debt gets cheaper as risk falls. Rather than one €100M facility raised today, capital is raised in stages as each milestone — permit, completion, stabilisation — is cleared. Spa runs the sequence first; Italy follows roughly one phase behind, so progress at Spa de-risks the Italy raise.
- Now → 2027Stage A — Pre-permit. Concession, design and permit costs. Sponsor equity, or a small equity-priced bridge. Spa sits here today.Pre-permit
- Permit → 2028Stage B — Construction. The main facility: a development whole loan, or senior plus co-investment. Residence pre-sales run alongside, lowering the debt needed.Build
- 2028 → ~2030Stage C — Opening and ramp. Carry the asset through opening to stabilised trading.Stabilise
- ~2030Stage D — Refinance onto cheaper long-term debt, repaying the development loan and releasing equity.Refi
- 5–7 yearsStage E — Platform. The assets roll into one vehicle, refinanced at portfolio level and sold to an institution.Exit
The funding mix for each project — how much is carried by residence pre-sales, by debt, and by co-investment — is sized once the development budget, valuation and pre-sales position are confirmed. Dry Capital does not assume those figures here.
Two routes, with different costs to the sponsor. In practice both are used, sequenced — co-investment where debt will not go (pre-permit, and at platform level), a whole loan once a permitted project can carry it.
| Whole loan (debt) | Co-investment (equity alongside) | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | One facility covering the debt up to a set ceiling; the sponsor funds the rest | A partner puts equity in beside the sponsor, sharing risk and upside |
| Cost | A coupon — cheaper than equity | Shares the profit — the most expensive capital |
| Dilution | None; the sponsor keeps the upside | Dilutive; the partner takes a share |
| Control | Sponsor keeps control, subject to covenants | Partner gains governance and consent rights |
| Best fits | Construction once the permit is granted (Stage B) | Pre-permit, and funding the platform (Stages A and E) |
The deal routes to risk-priced development capital and co-investment, not to high-street banks. Dry Capital would run two tracks in parallel — a debt track for the Spa facility, and a co-investment track for the platform and Italy — drawing on its European institutional relationships alongside the international funds active in this space.
Whole-loan & development debt funds
Pan-European real-estate private credit and construction-debt specialists writing €30–100M tickets — the primary route for the Spa facility.
Hospitality-specialist lenders
Lenders that read hotel economics and the event-demand thesis, and that become the stabilisation and refinance lenders later.
Programmatic co-investment
Partners that commit to a pipeline — funding Spa now with the right to fund Italy next — rather than one building at a time.
Institutional exit buyers
Hotel private equity, sovereign and long-hold capital, and listed hotel platforms — seeded early so the platform sale is pre-warmed.
Counterparties are matched to the profile this platform attracts; appetite, ticket and terms are confirmed on approach. Dry Capital maintains the working lender list as part of the process.
As Escapade aggregates projects and approaches institutional capital, counterparties will ask whether the platform constitutes a regulated Alternative Investment Fund under AIFMD. The answer depends on structure — and the right structure keeps the platform outside the regulatory perimeter at this stage while remaining clean for an institutional exit.
Today — corporate, not a fund
Escapade is a UK developer-operator whose project SPVs are wholly owned subsidiaries. A single sponsor holding 100% of operating companies, funded by its own capital, is not an AIF. No AIFMD obligations arise. The UK / Jersey / Luxembourg / Belgium structure is a corporate holding structure, not a collective investment scheme.
When the line is crossed
A vehicle becomes an AIF when it raises capital from multiple external investors into a pooled vehicle managed on their collective behalf across a portfolio. Deal-by-deal bilateral investment agreements — one investor per SPV — do not cross the line. A single pooled vehicle with multiple LP subscribers does.
The right approach now — bilateral co-investment
For Spa (€30M) and Italy (€60M) as separate projects, a bilateral pref equity or co-investment agreement with one institutional partner per project keeps the structure outside AIFMD. This mirrors how Silverstone was financed: a single-lender bilateral agreement, no fund wrapper.
The right approach at platform stage
When aggregating into a master vehicle for institutional sale (~2029–30), a sub-threshold registered AIF in Jersey or Luxembourg is the clean solution. Below €500M AUM, registration (not a full AIFM licence) applies — lighter touch, minimal lead time, and familiar to the pension fund and SWF buyers who are the natural exit.
What each layer of the holding structure does
| Entity | Role | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| UK HoldCo (Escapade Living Ltd) | Sponsoring entity — IP, brand, contracts | English law; familiar to UK lenders and partners; home of the concession relationships |
| Jersey Master HoldCo | Holds shares in all country SPVs | Neutral jurisdiction; no withholding tax on distributions; English common law; standard for international LP bases (US, Asia, Gulf) |
| Luxembourg SCSp (if required) | EU LP marketing passport | AIFMD passporting to EU institutional LPs; CSSF registration below €500M is lighter touch; add only when needed |
| Belgium BV / Italy SRL | Local borrowing vehicle — holds the concession and building | Domestic lenders require a domestic entity; ring-fences each project; senior debt and pref share pledge sit here |
AIFMD — Escapade's position
Preferred equity — the bilateral instrument
Pref equity from a single investor per project does not create a fund. The investor takes a charge over the SPV shares, veto rights on reserved matters (sale, refinancing, business plan changes, distributions), and enforcement rights on milestone failure.
A split coupon — 5% cash pay + 8–10% PIK (accruing to exit) — makes the instrument serviceable during construction when operating cash flow is zero. The accrued PIK settles from exit proceeds alongside the return of capital.
Group capital stack — platform view
15–20%+ IRR target
Behind senior · ahead of equity
Reduced / nil fee + carry
Unencumbered · proof point
Opening 2028 · €30M
~€60M · timing TBC
Post-permit · project-level
Post-permit · project-level
Each project also raises capital through pre-sales of 125-yr commercial leaseholds, reducing the debt quantum — the Silverstone model.
The supply constraint is the moat
There are twenty Formula 1 circuits in the world. Every asset in this portfolio can only exist through a bilateral negotiation with a circuit owner — there is no open market to search, no auction to enter. Escapade has already delivered Silverstone, signed Spa-Francorchamps, and is in advanced discussion on a second circuit in Italy. Each new project requires years of relationship-building and a circuit willing to grant a long concession. That is simultaneously the binding constraint on scale and a structural moat: no competing developer can replicate the pipeline without replicating the relationships.
This overview reflects market practice and is for orientation. Structure, domicile and regulatory classification require specialist fund formation and tax counsel.
Rates and lenders
Basel III/IV capital charges made speculative hotel construction uneconomic for deposit-funded banks; debt funds absorbed the gap.
Hotel investment & the exit
Deepening institutional demand for European hotels — and for trophy and platform assets in particular — supports the eventual sale.
A balanced read on the platform — how a lender or co-investor will frame the opportunity before they build their credit case.
Strengths
- Silverstone delivered — £90M GDV, sold out, 4.5★, trading since 2024. The proof the model works.
- Concession-controlled sites — trackside land is scarce and circuit-controlled; no competing hotel can replicate the position.
- Dual revenue structure — residence pre-sales reduce the debt quantum; hotel and F&B provide ongoing income.
- Event-anchored captive demand — race weekends, corporate track days and circuit events fill the calendar beyond generic tourism.
Weaknesses
- Pre-permit, pre-cashflow — Spa permit submitted September 2026; construction debt only available post-grant.
- Seasonal demand profile — Belgian Ardennes peaks in summer/autumn; Q1/Q4 occupancy will be softer than a city-centre hotel.
- One delivered asset — the model is proven at Silverstone; its replicability in Belgium and Italy is not yet verified by trading data.
- Concession deed unread — mortgageability and lender step-in rights are the binding gate for senior debt; not yet confirmed.
Opportunities
- Insurer appetite at Stage D — long-duration stabilisation lenders (AXA IM Alts, Allianz RE, Aviva) and trophy exit buyers suit this asset profile precisely; seed relationships ahead of opening in 2028.
- F1 growth — record TV audience, calendar expansion (Las Vegas, Miami, Qatar), rising corporate hospitality spend per event.
- Italy pipeline — a second European circuit deepens the platform and accelerates the institutional sale.
- Experiential premium — luxury travel pivoting toward experience over location; trackside hotels sit at the intersection of that shift.
Threats
- F1 calendar dependency — Spa contracted to 2031; circuit renewal is outside Escapade's control and the asset's value is tightly linked.
- Pre-sales demand risk — UK buyers have proven appetite for 125-year commercial leaseholds; Belgian and Italian buyer demand is untested.
- Construction cost inflation — Belgian labour and materials costs rising; a fixed-price GMP contract with a credible contractor is essential.
- Seasonality and DSCR — a 12-month debt service test will stress Q1/Q4; lenders will require interest reserves and Silverstone year-round data to model the base case.
The Strengths and Opportunities are what make this fundable; the Weaknesses and Threats are what a lender's credit committee will focus on. The diligence pack in §13 is ordered to address them in sequence.
General market ranges for the kind of capital this profile attracts — not quotes, and not specific to this project. They tighten once the development budget, valuation and concession terms are confirmed.
| Tranche | Loan-to-cost | Indicative all-in | Where it fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senior development (debt fund) | 60–65% | ~5.25–7.0% | Construction, post-permit |
| Whole loan / stretch-senior | 70–80% | ~6.75–8.5% | Single-lender construction stack |
| Co-investment / junior | — | ~12–18% (equity-like) | Equity gap & pre-permit |
| Stabilised term refinance | 55–65% LTV | swap + margin | After opening & ramp (Stage D) |
A concession (versus freehold) typically adds ~25–50bps; pre-permit risk adds ~50–100bps or a permit condition. Development equity of roughly 25–40% of cost is expected before a whole loan closes.
The same pack moves every conversation forward. In order of how much each item unlocks:
- 1The concession terms. Length, and whether it can be mortgaged and assigned with lender step-in rights — the single most decisive item for senior debt, and quick to check.
- 2Development budget and cost-to-complete for Spa — the line-item budget with contingency.
- 3Construction programme and contractor — programme, contract basis, and the permit-to-build sequence.
- 4Operator and brand — who runs the hotel, on what terms, and the ramp to stabilised trading.
- 5Sponsor equity — how much is committed and in what form.
- 6Silverstone trading — occupancy, rate and operating performance since opening: the proof the model delivers.
- 7Valuations — land/concession, completed value and stabilised value.
- 8Italy — site, indicative concession and a one-page budget, to confirm the second project behind Spa.
Escapade raises capital across three parallel tracks — common equity, preferred equity, and co-investment. Below are the indicative heads of terms and what an investor nets in each structure, benchmarked against three comparable real-estate mandates in the same markets.
| Term | Common Equity | Preferred Equity | Co-Investment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rank in the stack | Most junior · last out | Behind senior debt · ahead of common equity | Pari passu with GP in the deal |
| Target gross return | 15–20%+ IRR / 2.0–2.5× | 12–15% p.a. (fixed coupon) | Deal-level return, pro-rata |
| Management fee | 1.5–2.0% p.a. committed | Typically none or 0.5–1.0% | Reduced or NIL |
| Preferred return / hurdle | 8% p.a., compounded | n/a — the coupon is the return | n/a |
| GP catch-up | 75–100% to GP | None | None |
| Carried interest | 20% over the hurdle | None (or small) | NIL |
| GP commitment | 1.5–2.5% of fund | Same fund-level commitment | GP invests alongside |
| Investor NET vs gross | Gross less mgmt fee less 20% carry | ≈ the coupon (no carry drag) | ≈ gross (little/no fee or carry) |
| Best suits | Investors seeking maximum upside | Yield + downside protection | Anchor / large-ticket investors |
What the investor nets — base (1.8×) vs target (2.2×) deal, €100M invested, 5-yr hold
Common Equity
Base case: 1.55× net (12.5% gross IRR less 1.75% fee + carry)
Target case: 1.87× net (17.1% gross IRR less fee + carry)
At base the equity story is modest — preferred can out-net it. At target, the upside pulls ahead.
Preferred Equity
Both cases: 1.76–2.01× net (12–15% coupon, compounded 5 yrs)
Fixed and identical regardless of deal outcome — certainty of return, capped upside. The exact multiple depends on the agreed coupon within the 12–15% range. That is the trade-off investors see.
Co-Investment
Base case: 1.80× net (≈ gross — zero fee/carry)
Target case: 2.20× net (≈ gross)
The cheapest access — nets close to the deal return. Reserved for anchor / larger tickets as a relationship sweetener.
Market benchmarks — three comparable mandates (anonymised)
| Item | Deal A · Spain Sponsor recap / MBO |
Deal B · Luxembourg LP preferred equity |
Deal C · Belgium Closed-end fund (Art. 9) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structure | Corporate LBO + MIP ratchet | LP preferred equity | Closed-end GP/LP fund |
| Management fee | 1.0% of invested capital | 2.0% p.a. of LP committed | 1.75% → 1.50% net invested |
| Preferred return | None (MoM ratchet) | 8% (10% in LP pitch) | 8% hurdle |
| Catch-up / carry | MIP ratchet 1.0–4.1% | 100% catch-up · 20% carry | 75% catch-up · 20% carry (30% if ESG-gated) |
| GP commitment | €350k (0.76%) | 2.5% (€462,500) | 1.5%, cap €3.0M |
| Equity arrangement / placement fee | 1.0% on equity raised | 1.15% sourcing + 1.0% subscription | In LPA |
| Financing / debt arrangement fee | n/a (equity-only structure) | 1.0% on debt arranged | In LPA |
| Development management fee | n/a (no development) | Market: 2–5% of project cost | Market: 2–5% of project cost |
| Asset management fee | Included in mgmt fee | Market: 0.5–1.0% GAV p.a. | Market: 0.5–1.0% GAV p.a. |
| Exit / disposal fee | None | 1.5–1.75% of exit proceeds | None stated |
| Exit KPIs / performance gates | IRR + MoM hurdles per MIP ratchet | n/a (fixed coupon instrument) | TBD — not yet defined |
| Target return | 26.6% IRR / 3.43× | 14.2% LP IRR | 20%+ gross / 2.2–2.4× |
Market benchmarks drawn from three active European mandates; sponsor names withheld. Terms indicative, June 2026. Dry Capital advisory fee (for arranging the raise) is a separate engagement fee and is not reflected above.
Dry Capital is a debt-advisory and capital-placement firm built for owners and developers who need alternative financing that banks won't provide. We bridge the gap between complex real-estate capital needs and the institutions — debt funds, private-credit vehicles, co-investors — that are actively looking for exactly this kind of risk-adjusted return.
Direct relationships with debt funds, private-credit managers and co-investors across Europe, the UK, North America and the Middle East — including allocators actively seeking whole-loan and development-debt exposure.
Teaser, interactive investment memorandum, financial model and data-room architecture produced by the Dry Capital team — not outsourced. This document is the standard.
Soft-circle lenders ahead of permit; firm process on grant. Weekly reporting on pipeline, feedback and decisions. Full transparency throughout the mandate.
Live mandates across senior, whole-loan and co-invest — Iberia, Belgium, Canada, the UK. We walk into every lender meeting already speaking the language of credit.
The Escapade mandate is valued as a multi-asset, long-term relationship — Spa now, Italy next, and the eventual institutional vehicle. Dry Capital is structured to grow alongside the platform.
Named a Real Estate Emerging Manager to Watch by With Intelligence / S&P Global, 2026. €4bn+ executed across European real estate prior to Dry Capital.
45+ years of combined front-office experience across European real estate — equity, debt, development and capital markets. drycapital.eu →
If Escapade wishes to proceed, Dry Capital works under a mandate agreement for a defined engagement period. We are happy to discuss the terms at your convenience — the conversation starts with a call.
Brussels · HQ — Rue des Atrébates 112, 1040 Etterbeek · info@drycapital.eu | Madrid · Lake Capital — C. del Marqués del Riscal 2, 28010 Madrid · info@lake-capital.com
This document is an indicative overview prepared by Dry Capital as prospective debt advisor. It is not a commitment, an offer of finance, or financial advice. All figures are indicative market ranges dated June 2026 and will change. Counterparty references are illustrative of the capital this profile attracts, not expressions of interest.
Dry Capital · Brussels · © 2026 · All rights reserved