"The importance of TV money to Tottenham’s revenue growth is clear: 83% (£55 million) of the £66 million increase since 2008 from £115 million to £181 million has come from broadcasting. In the same period, commercial income rose only £8 million from £34 million to £42 million, while match day income grew by just £4 million from £40 million to £44 million." - Swiss Ramble,
http://swissramble.blogspot.ca/2015/04/tottenham-hotspur-bottom-line.html
In that respect, Arsenal rode the wave too, so it's telling that the period from 04/05 to 14/15 sees us growing in parallel, more or less. Where we have lagged behind has been in things the directors have more direct control over, like commercial revenue, where, at least when it comes to the top six, "...Since 2009 Tottenham have the lowest growth, both in absolute and percentage terms, with an increase of only £19 million to £42 million. As a painful comparative, in the same period Arsenal have grown by £29 million to £77 million (excluding the new Puma deal which started in July 2014) – and that’s nothing compared to Emirates Marketing Project £148 million, Manchester United £119 million, Chelsea £56 million and Liverpool £44 million."
In contrast to this, Arsenal were nowhere on the financial scene in 1997-1998, according to the Deloitte Money League for that year: the top ten included four English clubs (United, Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Chelsea and Liverpool in that order) with the lowest one of those rounding out the top ten list with 45 million pounds, which by extension indicates that Arsenal were earning less than that at the time. Just four years later, in 2001-2002, Arsenal's revenue was measured at 141.2 million euros, putting them eighth in the Money League, with their accounts from 2002-2003 revealing a commercial income of 22 million pounds, bettered only by United and Chelsea: commercial revenue that increased year on year from that point on until they moved into the new stadium. How much of that is down to their success, and how much of that is down to Dein is an open question, but given that he was described as the driving force behind both the foundation of the Premier League itself and its monetization / marketing/ commercial expansion (Highbury: The Story of Arsenal Stadium is a book that goes into detail about Dein's connections and near single-handed advancement of the Premier League onto the world stage through the use of said connections, and is available on Google Reader if you don't want to soil your fingers by actually touching it
)....I'd say it's safe to assume that he had an awful lot to do with it.
Levy riding of extremely high ticket prices and bloating TV revenues to stay roughly 150 million euros behind them in revenues doesn't compare to the catapulting of Arsenal into the financial elite that Dein managed to pull off: now, how much of that is down to on-field success versus Dein's management is open to question... but Dein was the one who hired Wenger, a man who had as mentioned before spent a year in the backwater of Japan and who had previously called out his own chairman on what he felt was corruption. And Dein was the one who then backed him when it came to buying the players he wanted, and bringing in the coaches he wanted, and the training facilities and regimens he wanted. Again, I cannot see Levy ever hiring a manager as ready to call out his chairman as Wenger was perceived as being when Dein hired him, or backing that manager with all the things he asked for without a murmur. So, overall, I'd suggest that again, Levy /= Dein, in that regard.
(P.S: and hey, when it comes to numbers, I always mention that we're the lowest spenders on transfer fees over the last five seasons with a 21 million pound profit overall, and that we've just accrued a 65 million pound profit while telling Poch to f*ck off and make do with Stambouli, Fazio, Davies and Vorm. If I remember correctly, you're the one who sees more fit to preface those statements with 'b-but unlisted agent's fees!' and the like.
)
