Couple of points really
I know football fans seem to think that owners should only ever put funds in, but there is nothing that stops any owner taking money out if the situation allows.
The main focus should be have the bills been met, was the cash available, did the extraction of funds damage the team performance. On the first two points the answer is yes the third is more subjective but the team didnt do so bad that season. You could argue we could have done better with more funding spent on players but that is not guaranteed. Conversely you could argue the way things happened allowed MR time to build the success that has happened this season
Depends also what budget you mean. The EFL SCMP budget? basically 60% of turnover less direct costs plus player sales less player purchases (simplification) or was it the internal budget given to MR prior to the Maddison & McNulty sales ? but even then which EFL budget the one at the start of the financial year or the one at the end?
The final EFL budget to 31/05/2019 based on the accounts (its a guess) could have been in the region of 4.8m - our total wage bill was £5.3m for all staff so i dont think we spent to that budget on players
(Turnover 6.2m less 1.5m direct costs plus player sales 4.4m less player purchases £1m) x 60%
The calculation at 01/06/2018 that was submitted to EFL mid June 2018 could have been lower than that, because SCMP operates on the actual amounts received and dates received and the club had probably not received the transfer monies by that time
Most likely MR had an internal budget to work to . However to balance the books then the initial budget would have to be set on the cashflows etc that were known march or april or may 2018 likely to happen (crowd incomes being an educated guess) MR i would think would have to work and plan to this budget which most likely indicated an overall shortfall (Expected turnover 6m less expected direct 1.5m and administrative costs 6.5m) Which would have meant trimming wages and selling players The Maddison money was a bonus and in effect ARVO took their share of that (which was not all of it). The balance was left to fund the club and that meant MR later on didnt need to sell players unless he wanted to
So did the ARVO extraction (which would not have happened until funds were received) circa £1.7m (interest & capital) affect the MR plans or budget or take away from the playing budget, not sure it did. Could more funds have been left in the club yes but the extraction also means less overall debt and it lowers future interest costs. It hasnt damaged what MR has put together since in my opinion
