Commercial Advisory
Unchecked assumptions create the gaps that kill momentum.
Execute your next commercial move without the blind spots.
We isolate the factors that shape the outcome, so you can commit with confidence.
What we can do for you
Blind spots hide in the gap between a strong idea and a signed contract.
We act as your commercial architects, building the structural foundation required to drive execution.
Mandate-fit projects and acquisitions, not dead-end leads.
We don't blast mass emails; we build commercial leverage.
You get: A qualified pipeline, ready to move.
Insights on local regulations and business realities, not a research deck.
Entering a new market without a local grip is how projects stall and capital bleeds.
You get: A commercial edge in the new market from day one.
Analysis and diligence that produce decisions, not delays.
We strip away theoretical research to focus strictly on commercial realities.
You get: A stress-tested asset value and the exact clarity required to make your call.
Tested for fit before the introduction, not after the deal stalls.
Even a highly capable partner can stall a project if the strategic fit is wrong.
You get: Meetings with partners ready to engage.
Case studies
Find a credible route into Polish onshore renewables, a market shaped by coal, political intervention and shifting rules.
Tested the market before setting the ambition: Demand, regulation, routes to market, grid and solar profitability
Defined the role before choosing a partner: Three ways to build a portfolio, each with different control, risk and organisational demands
Aligned the organisation before negotiating: Technical, trading, finance and decision-makers behind one entry case
From market screening to market presence. A market-entry mandate, then the acquisition of an established Polish solar developer: a foothold, around 1.6 GW of pipeline and an experienced development team.
In 2019, a European energy major with offshore wind interests scoped its first Polish onshore renewables project. On paper, the case was compelling: rising electricity demand, an ageing coal fleet and growing pressure to decarbonise. The risks were just as real: political influence over the energy sector, frequently changing rules, an immature power-trading market and few long-term offtake contracts.
Developers were keen to talk. The harder questions were internal. What role did the company want to play? How much development, construction and power-price risk would it accept? And how could it compare offers that were each structured differently?
Whether Poland deserved a strategy: We led the market analysis, supported by internal departments and external advisers. It covered demand, regulation, auction and power purchase agreement routes to market, grid access and the profitability of utility-scale solar. Poland was confirmed as a priority market and a focused solar screening was approved.
What the deal space really offered: Dialogue with more than ten active developers and investors, including ib vogt, Canadian Solar, Better Energy, GEO Renewables, Standard Power and ZEPAK, revealed a market richer in opportunities than expected. It also showed that partner offers could not be compared until the company defined its own preferences.
What each route would demand: Three ways to build a portfolio were set out: a development agreement, a joint venture on existing sites and a strategic partnership with a utility or investor. Each carried different implications for control, risk sharing, organisational load and local presence. Ten key risks, from commercial terms and project quality to grid access and changes in law, made the trade-offs explicit.
Who needed to be on board: We coordinated technical, power-trading, finance and regulatory teams and decision-makers, so that ambition, evaluation approach and negotiating boundaries were agreed before commitments were made. In parallel, she led local stakeholder engagement and contract and commercial negotiations with potential partners.
A mandate to enter, and the route that best matched the ambition. The partnership negotiations did not become deals. Instead, in 2021 the company acquired an established Polish solar developer, gaining a foothold in the market, a pipeline of around 1.6 GW of solar projects at different stages of development and an experienced team that continued to build the business.
Those negotiations were far from wasted. They gave the team and management a substantial learning curve: the partnership structures first targeted were tested against real offers, real terms and real counterparts, and the conclusions fed directly into the final decision to acquire a development platform instead. The platform brought more than projects. It gave the company an extension of its own team on the ground.
Clarity about what the company needed - scale, speed and local capability - made it possible to recognise the right route when it appeared, even though it was not the one first planned.
Clarity on ambition, role and risk first. Then a commitment the organisation was ready to make.
Find credible cloud acquisition opportunities across 12 markets.
Looked behind headline revenue: Company-level versus group-level figures; own products and services versus reselling third-party cloud subscriptions and software licences
Separated ownership from the ability to buy control: Voting rights, restrictions on selling shares, and approvals requiring verification
Distinguished reported profit from operating profit: Primary-account evidence versus unverified operating profit
Equipped to decide where to focus, what to question, and which evidence to request next. Four stronger-evidenced starting points, five requiring profit verification, and a 21-point verification framework enabled more focused internal decisions.
The investment company wanted to expand its technological footprint and service offering through a controlling acquisition. Its brief called for around €10 million in annual revenue, positive operating profit, an established regional presence, and a partnership with AWS, Microsoft Azure or Google Cloud.
Finding cloud companies was not the challenge. Knowing which deserved serious acquisition attention was. Did the revenue belong to the business being considered? Was it generating operating profit? Could the client realistically acquire control? Our task was to separate credible starting points from untested assumptions, so the client could direct its time and effort towards investigating acquisition fit, not chasing headline credentials.
What the revenue actually represented: A group’s turnover could overstate the size of the business under consideration. Revenue from reselling third-party cloud subscriptions and software licences, training and other activities could sit alongside income from the company’s own products and services. We distinguished company-level from group-level figures and identified the revenue breakdowns still needed, so the client could assess what was actually generating income and whether it matched the business it wanted to acquire.
What buying control would require: Knowing who owned the business was not the same as knowing whether the client could acquire control. Seller willingness, restrictions on selling shares, required approvals and voting rights still needed checking.
How to move from comparison to conversation: We made each company’s potential fit with the acquisition brief explicit, alongside the uncertainties that could change that assessment. This gave the client a starting point for each discussion: why the business was of interest, where the fit remained uncertain, and what needed exploring before taking it further. Instead of a generic introduction, the client could enter with a clear rationale and a focused agenda.
Alongside the comparison, we built a 21-point verification framework, translating unresolved acquisition criteria into specific checks and identifying the documents or confirmations needed to address them.
Equipped to decide where to focus, what to question, and which evidence to request next. The report highlighted four stronger-evidenced starting points and five companies requiring further profit verification. The first four had primary-account evidence of positive operating profit; the other five still needed that confirmation. This distinguished the strength of the evidence, rather than ranking acquisition attractiveness.
The verification framework turned the report into a working agenda. It distinguished supported conclusions from open questions and helped the client assess new information against the original acquisition brief.
Less effort assembling the picture. More attention to the issues that would determine whether an opportunity deserved further time and investment.
Four years into an unfinished ERP implementation, deliveries were being missed and costs were escalating.
Broke the either-or frame: Introduced a third route to assess: replacing the ERP with a focused bespoke system
Made continuing a choice, not a default: Examined future costs, supplier dependence and operational consequences
Made performance testable: Defined questions on delivery, accountability and measurable business outcomes
Equipped to assess three directions, not remain trapped between two. Independent research, basic cost estimates and an internal audit framework gave the MD a broader basis for challenging assumptions and framing leadership discussions.
The Managing Director was already listening to his people. Their experience of missed deliveries, obstructed sales processes and mounting workarounds raised a question that another implementation update could not answer: was the business still pursuing the right solution?
After four years, the ERP remained unfinished and costs continued to rise. With leadership divided, the MD wanted an independent view of the position, the consequences of continuing and the alternatives. He did not want tunnel vision, or someone to make the decision for him.
Looked beyond the implementation timetable: Drawing on the MD’s operational insights and external research, we examined the mismatch between the system and the business, alongside the absence of a dedicated client-side change owner. The question was not just when the software would be ready, but what needed to change for it to serve the company.
Examined the relationship the business would be committing to: We researched the supplier’s ownership, commercial direction and support model, and reviewed examples of ERP failures and disputes elsewhere. Basic cost estimates and a wider assessment brought ongoing spending, support dependence, sales disruption and staff-retention risks into the same picture. Continuing was a commercial choice with consequences, not simply the next stage of an existing project.
Opened a third route: The discussion had centred on staying with the incumbent or returning to the previous setup. We introduced a different possibility: replacing the ERP with a more focused bespoke system, built by a local specialist team or freelancers around essential business workflows. This was an alternative to investigate, not a validated replacement plan. It widened the discussion beyond two options the client found unsatisfactory.
Turned disagreement into questions that could be tested: We prepared an internal audit framework covering costs, operational performance, people, supplier support and accountability. It asked what worked today, how much manual correction remained, who owned delivery, and which measurable results would establish that the system was working. It also challenged leadership to define the conditions for continuing and a fallback if those conditions were not met.
Equipped to evaluate the future of the business, not just the future of the implementation. The MD gained an independent assessment that connected his team’s concerns with commercial consequences and a broader set of possible directions.
The third route helped move the discussion beyond “stay or go back.” The audit framework gave leadership a basis for examining competing views against business performance rather than supplier assurances or the money already spent.
The work mapped options and consequences; it did not prescribe a decision. Its value was a clearer basis for deciding what deserved further investigation before committing more money, time and organisational capacity.
What changes if you bring us in
It sits across jurisdictions, local regulations, business cultures, and competing agendas.
Here is our baseline for every engagement:
01
We figure out if your prospect is ready and funded, or just exploring. We don't let you burn momentum on dead-end pursuits.
02
We map specific vulnerabilities against your capabilities, identifying who decides, who influences, and who blocks the deal.
03
We translate technical data into answers decision-makers need right now.
Where we work
Strategy architecture, opportunity spotting, execution support.
We bring this structural discipline to complex, high-stakes projects.
Your seasoned advisory team
Exposing blind spots and mapping the hidden dependencies that threaten execution:
We are backed by 10+ local Subject Matter Experts.
We bring in network experts only when your project requires their exact skillset.
This way we guarantee strategic depth and commercial relevance.
FounderManaging Partner
Architecting complex commercial transactions, driving market entry, and connecting commercial ambition with credible local execution.
PartnerProject Development & Delivery
Analyzing problems, recommending solutions, and guiding implementation.
PartnerBusiness Development
Identifying viable client growth channels, aligning stakeholder interests, and advancing complex opportunities toward execution.
Burning capital and momentum on deals, markets, or alliances that ultimately collapse under the weight of unchecked operational realities.
Executing every initiative on a disciplined commercial foundation, giving you the clarity and leverage to shape your next move.
