• This website uses cookies. More information.
  • The This Is Anfield Forums community is moving to a new home. Click here for more information on the transition.

The Owners

KYRed18

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
272
I know it is not the same but FSG has no problem with flashing the cash when it comes to the Boston Red Sox. On the other hand, it is too early to judge the window is only open for a few days, let's see what has happened when it is October.
Definitely ran similarly to LFC. I won't go into too much detail, but the Red Sox refused to resign one of the 3 best players in the MLB at age 27 because it would've crippled their wage structure and kept them in the luxury tax bracket for at least the next 3-5 years. They run boston similarly to how they run LFC, which is profitably.
 

mattyhurst

TIA Regular
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
15,348
Boston just let Mookie Betts become a free agent, they are certainly in transition at the moment going for youth, a bit like Liverpool were a few years back in a way.

The way they have started the shortened MLB season will attest to that.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
Yes I admit I went off looking at what other people had said in the thread and then repeated it without checking the figures myself. Its worth pointing iut though that the 1% difference in performance means shit. We were 32 million better than them at the start in 2018 we were 78 million better than them. But only 1.33% difference in performance. I'll take the actual cash increase as a measure that we are doing better than them not the similar growth percentage. Likewise a lot of compliments on Spurs growth of 172.24% but they were on £49.6m and in 2018 they were on £135.1m a growth of £85.5m our growth was £110.6m! Who cares if their growth percentage was 30% more than ours? Our increase in cash was bigger than their increase in cash!
You do?

Arsenal have been awful commercially for a long time, its not outside the realms of possibility for the revenue to grow by 100% doubling how much they make. It would however be near on impossible to look at United and realistically expect them to be able to match Arsenal "growth" by matching Arsenals percentage increase. What matters is who is making the most money and what is reasonable to expect to achieve. For us to have been the real second place in commercial revenues is fantastic when you look at the period before or the sporting success of the period in question. All we could have hoped to achieve by 2018 is to be second only to United. We have achieved that. Others that have improved "more" by having a better growth percentage than us have actually still not performed as well as us because we are still ahead of them.
By your own contention it should be easier to demonstrate higher rate of incremental growth from a lower starting position. I agree. Why then have we not even been able to track United's rate of growth when we had a lower starting point?

As I mentioned above, had we even closed the gap in the rate of incremental growth to United by half we would have received an extra £127.7m in commercial revenues in the period from 2010.

Right now (and for the last four years) our yearly commercial revenues would have been approximately £30m per year higher than they actually are, had our year on year growth been at the rate of 15% not 13% (United's being 17%).
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
You do?



By your own contention it should be easier to demonstrate higher rate of incremental growth from a lower starting position. I agree. Why then have we not even been able to track United's rate of growth when we had a lower starting point?

As I mentioned above, had we even closed the gap in the rate of incremental growth to United by half we would have received an extra £127.7m in commercial revenues in the period from 2010.

Right now (and for the last four years) our yearly commercial revenues would have been approximately £30m per year higher than they actually are, had our year on year growth been at the rate of 15% not 13% (United's being 17%).
You're not taking the context of the two clubs into account. United had won how many titles before that period? What were we winning? When they were negotiating they were doing so with the mantle of biggest most lucrative and currently most successful on the pitch club. Who were just as historically large as us. They were sitting with companies to match or better the existing mega deals. We hadn't had much success, in comparison, for a long time and were trading purely on our historical standing. We were also being approached by companies looking to match or better our existing deals that were a lot lower than theirs. I'm a Liverpool fan but I can't believe you think whilst we went through some real rough times that we should have been catching up as quickly as you seem to assume was likely.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
You're not taking the context of the two clubs into account. United had won how many titles before that period? What were we winning? When they were negotiating they were doing so with the mantle of biggest most lucrative and currently most successful on the pitch club. Who were just as historically large as us. They were sitting with companies to match or better the existing mega deals. We hadn't had much success, in comparison, for a long time and were trading purely on our historical standing. We were also being approached by companies looking to match or better our existing deals that were a lot lower than theirs. I'm a Liverpool fan but I can't believe you think whilst we went through some real rough times that we should have been catching up as quickly as you seem to assume was likely.
Catching up? I haven't suggested that. We started from a lower base that inherently factors in your points about the respective positions of the two clubs you open with.

You've said that it's easier to attain a higher rate of growth from a lower starting position, I agree. And yet we didn't compared with United. Even had we matched the year on year rate of United (17%) we would continually have fallen behind given our respective starting points. I'm not even arguing for that. I'm arguing that 4pts behind year on year represents an underperformance. I think it would have been reasonable to expect us to be no more than 2pts behind. I've already set out what a difference that marginal gain would have made even though the gap would still have widened.

I've never claimed that it would be reasonable to expect us to close the gap on United in this period, only that we could have done more to prevent it from widening to the extent it has.
 

Dutch

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
2,481
Definitely ran similarly to LFC. I won't go into too much detail, but the Red Sox refused to resign one of the 3 best players in the MLB at age 27 because it would've crippled their wage structure and kept them in the luxury tax bracket for at least the next 3-5 years. They run boston similarly to how they run LFC, which is profitably.
Well, they signed David Price to a € 217/7 year contract to name one. When I said, "I know it's not the same" I meant that there are no transfer money deals in baseball, well hardly, sometimes they trade a player for cash but that's it.

BTW, Orioles-fan since 99 and I played the sport myself, I know my baseball.
 

KYRed18

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
272
Well, they signed David Price to a € 217/7 year contract to name one. When I said, "I know it's not the same" I meant that there are no transfer money deals in baseball, well hardly, sometimes they trade a player for cash but that's it.

BTW, Orioles-fan since 99 and I played the sport myself, I know my baseball.
Not arguing your credentials.... I worked in the industry...played collegiately and professionally(shit independent league for a real short time)..... The Price contract is a fair point, I am just saying within the industry the Red Sox are very well known as one of the best ran teams in the MLB.

In fact, the Price contract has a lot of similarities to us splashing cash on Virgil. A "buy to win now" transaction where you expect a return early in the contract rather than as an investment. They also dumped $30M of that contract to the Dodgers this past offseason. They are actively clearing cap space right now.

Boston just let Mookie Betts become a free agent, they are certainly in transition at the moment going for youth, a bit like Liverpool were a few years back in a way.

The way they have started the shortened MLB season will attest to that.
Boston traded Betts along with Price to the Dodgers in return for 3 top prospects and a whole lot of freed up money. It's the reason the Dodgers extended Betts to the second largest contract ever in the MLB almost immediately once the season began. If the season did not play, they would've given up 3 top tier prospects and Betts could've walked in free agency in fall of 2020/Winter 2021.
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
16,595
Not arguing your credentials.... I worked in the industry...played collegiately and professionally(shit independent league for a real short time)..... The Price contract is a fair point, I am just saying within the industry the Red Sox are very well known as one of the best ran teams in the MLB.

In fact, the Price contract has a lot of similarities to us splashing cash on Virgil. A "buy to win now" transaction where you expect a return early in the contract rather than as an investment. They also dumped $30M of that contract to the Dodgers this past offseason. They are actively clearing cap space right now.
Since Henry has owned them they have consistently been among the biggest spenders in terms of salary in the league. However, the team they directly compete with can and will always outspend them so they still have to do it smartly. As such, they use a similar sort of model to the way we are ran. They find value where they can find it and spend big where their analysis says the extra expense is justified. They can afford to do that in part because of how sensibly they have put together the rest of their squad. This year, even after dumping Betts they are still the third highest in baseball.
 

KYRed18

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
272
Since Henry has owned them they have consistently been among the biggest spenders in terms of salary in the league. However, the team they directly compete with can and will always outspend them so they still have to do it smartly. As such, they use a similar sort of model to the way we are ran. They find value where they can find it and spend big where their analysis says the extra expense is justified. They can afford to do that in part because of how sensibly they have put together the rest of their squad. This year, even after dumping Betts they are still the third highest in baseball.

It's like Moneyballl, but actually having some cash to spend.....
 

KYRed18

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
272
Sorry to the rest of the thread I geek out on baseball analytics a bit given my background. We can go back to talking about the owners relevant to the 2019/2020 Premier League Champions
 

NYRhockey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
1,650
Definitely ran similarly to LFC. I won't go into too much detail, but the Red Sox refused to resign one of the 3 best players in the MLB at age 27 because it would've crippled their wage structure and kept them in the luxury tax bracket for at least the next 3-5 years. They run boston similarly to how they run LFC, which is profitably.
No offense, but you’re way out of touch with the Red Sox situation.
 

mattyhurst

TIA Regular
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
15,348
Boston traded Betts along with Price to the Dodgers in return for 3 top prospects and a whole lot of freed up money. It's the reason the Dodgers extended Betts to the second largest contract ever in the MLB almost immediately once the season began. If the season did not play, they would've given up 3 top tier prospects and Betts could've walked in free agency in fall of 2020/Winter 2021.
Well doesn't that make the point about Boston in transition, otherwise they may have gone tooth and nail on Betts, whether he wanted to stay isn't totally sure but it doesn't necessary show that they spend hell for leather for Boston winter after winter and not here in Liverpool. Whatever we make is fed back into the team.

I'm not surprised we haven't spent to be fair, we didn't know how the league would end until a few weeks back and as soon as we did we started hearing rumours on Mandi and others.

I don't think we will spend massively but we will improve the squad and that includes someone up top, to me it's obvious we need a wing type forward, Werner was never that.

Also next season will make an impact on this, if the season is curtailed early we may not spend decent amounts til Summer 2021.
 

NYRhockey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
1,650
Well doesn't that make the point about Boston in transition, otherwise they may have gone tooth and nail on Betts, whether he wanted to stay isn't totally sure but it doesn't necessary show that they spend hell for leather for Boston winter after winter and not here in Liverpool. Whatever we make is fed back into the team.
They actually tried for years to get Betts to sign an extension. He was made offers of 5 years / 100M, then 8/200 and the last one at 10/300 all of which he turned down. During the last offer he countered with 12/420. He recently signed an extension with the Dodgers, where he got traded to, for 12/365.

Betts is 27/28 so in only a few years the Red Sox would have been regretting that contract so long term they are better off.

The Red Sox and Liverpool were run in a very similar way until 2015 when Henry really changed direction with the Red Sox and hired Dombrowski as the president of baseball operations and shortly also took over as general manager.

Dombrowski is the ultimate “win now” GM and he wasted no time trading top prospects for older/established players and signing expensive free agents.

They did win the World Series in 2018 but the Red Sox will feel Dombrowski’s impact for years to come.

They are hamstrung with a mediocre, expensive roster and no young players coming up the ranks. Basically every baseball publication rates the Red Sox minor league system as bottom 5 in the sport.

This year they are carrying more than 80M on their payroll for players that are either no longer with the team or are out injured and won’t play a single inning for them until 2021. That’s how bad Dombrowski has screwed them over but that is his MO, spend big, trade young players and leave the team decimated. He came from the Detroit Tigers and in the 4 seasons since he left them they have won 86, 64, 64 and 47 games respectively, out of 162.

He got fired in 2019 but the new executives have a lot of work to do.
 

[email protected]

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
4,028
They actually tried for years to get Betts to sign an extension. He was made offers of 5 years / 100M, then 8/200 and the last one at 10/300 all of which he turned down. During the last offer he countered with 12/420. He recently signed an extension with the Dodgers, where he got traded to, for 12/365.

Betts is 27/28 so in only a few years the Red Sox would have been regretting that contract so long term they are better off.

The Red Sox and Liverpool were run in a very similar way until 2015 when Henry really changed direction with the Red Sox and hired Dombrowski as the president of baseball operations and shortly also took over as general manager.

Dombrowski is the ultimate “win now” GM and he wasted no time trading top prospects for older/established players and signing expensive free agents.

They did win the World Series in 2018 but the Red Sox will feel Dombrowski’s impact for years to come.

They are hamstrung with a mediocre, expensive roster and no young players coming up the ranks. Basically every baseball publication rates the Red Sox minor league system as bottom 5 in the sport.

This year they are carrying more than 80M on their payroll for players that are either no longer with the team or are out injured and won’t play a single inning for them until 2021. That’s how bad Dombrowski has screwed them over but that is his MO, spend big, trade young players and leave the team decimated. He came from the Detroit Tigers and in the 4 seasons since he left them they have won 86, 64, 64 and 47 games respectively, out of 162.

He got fired in 2019 but the new executives have a lot of work to do.
Basicallly Mourinho, then.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
Hello Trump. Never knew you are a member here.
Yes I have admitted to being wrong twice since I used Arsenal in a throwaway line as part of a hypothetical example after making an assumption on their commercial performance based on the below without checking that performance which turned out not to be as bad as was made out;

If that were to be the case, we might expect the arse should outperform us. After all, they've got a big, modern stadium in London. However, out of the "top six" clubs, the arse are the only club with a poorer commercial growth than us. So, just being in London doesn't explain the difference.
One possible explanation would be that a lot of Arsenal supporters come from BAME families and, consequently, are likely to have less disposal income.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
Yes I have admitted to being wrong twice since I used Arsenal in a throwaway line as part of a hypothetical example after making an assumption on their commercial performance based on the below without checking that performance which turned out not to be as bad as was made out;
You appear to be claiming that I made false statements regarding Arsenal's commercial performance; that it wasn't "as bad as was made out".

I said that "out of the "top six" clubs, the arse are the only club with a poorer commercial growth than us", and I stand by that. The figures extracted from the clubs' accounts show that to be true, to be factually correct.


Of the "top six" clubs Arsenal have the poorest commercial performance by any measure.

If you believe that to be untrue, I challenge you to prove otherwise; present your evidence.

And just to be perfectly clear, I never said that their performance was "awful", you did.

In my opinion, you are trying to pass the buck to cover for your faux pas.

Very Trumpesque.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
You appear to be claiming that I made false statements regarding Arsenal's commercial performance; that it wasn't "as bad as was made out".

I said that "out of the "top six" clubs, the arse are the only club with a poorer commercial growth than us", and I stand by that. The figures extracted from the clubs' accounts show that to be true, to be factually correct.


Of the "top six" clubs Arsenal have the poorest commercial performance by any measure.

If you believe that to be untrue, I challenge you to prove otherwise; present your evidence.

And just to be perfectly clear, I never said that their performance was "awful", you did.

In my opinion, you are trying to pass the buck to cover for your faux pas.

Very Trumpesque.
How am I passing the buck when I've admitted to being wrong? That's now 4 times I've admitted to being wrong on a throwaway comment I made in a hypothetical example of why "growth" is such a rubbish measure.

Spurs had more "growth" than us, well done Spurs, meanwhile the amount of actual real hard cash that we make increased by more money than theirs increased by. Growth may be a great measure to see if some entity or other is moving in the right direction but actual cold hard cash is what is important and our cash increased by £25.1m more than their cash increased by. I have no idea why growth is so important to you as a concept.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
How am I passing the buck when I've admitted to being wrong? That's now 4 times I've admitted to being wrong on a throwaway comment I made in a hypothetical example of why "growth" is such a rubbish measure.

Spurs had more "growth" than us, well done Spurs, meanwhile the amount of actual real hard cash that we make increased by more money than theirs increased by. Growth may be a great measure to see if some entity or other is moving in the right direction but actual cold hard cash is what is important and our cash increased by £25.1m more than their cash increased by. I have no idea why growth is so important to you as a concept.
You inferred that you were mislead by me. That is passing the buck.
 
Last edited:

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
How am I passing the buck when I've admitted to being wrong? That's now 4 times I've admitted to being wrong on a throwaway comment I made in a hypothetical example of why "growth" is such a rubbish measure.

Spurs had more "growth" than us, well done Spurs, meanwhile the amount of actual real hard cash that we make increased by more money than theirs increased by. Growth may be a great measure to see if some entity or other is moving in the right direction but actual cold hard cash is what is important and our cash increased by £25.1m more than their cash increased by. I have no idea why growth is so important to you as a concept.
You weren't wrong. Arsenal's commercial growth, over the period being discussed, was awful.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
You weren't wrong. Arsenal's commercial growth, over the period being discussed, was awful.
Apparently not. Apparently I simply misunderstood and need to think a lot harder next time. Think that one line about Arsenal has been the most hotly contested single statement I've made since I joined these boards.
 

Noo Noo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
5,719
First let me make it clear, I am not a member of the FSG-Out camp. I think that FSG have, for the most part, done a good job; they have been prudent stewards of our club enabling us to become pretty much self sufficient.

However, neither am I an FSG sycophant and I will criticise them where I believe it to be justified, and I believe that our commercial growth has not been as good as it might have been.

So, although commercial income has grown by 142.9% since FSG took control, every other club in the top six, bar Arsenal, has done better over the same period.

Here is the data:

Comparative Commercial Growth Table:



Comparative Commercial Growth Graph:



Finally a Commercial Growth Projection i.e. how much would Liverpool have earned in 2018/19 if our growth had kept pace with our rivals:



Various reasons can, and have been advanced as to why, comparatively, we have not done so well, why others have done better e.g. "London clubs have a natural advantage", or "it's easier to achieve relative growth from a lower starting point", but for every argument there is contradictory evidence.

I'm not saying I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong; I'm simply pointing out what I observe from the evidence. If my responses came across as aggressive or condescending, to anyone, I apologise unreservedly, it was not my intention; put it down to my poor literary style. That and the drugs.

Please feel free to draw your own conclusions, but for my part, I find myself in a position, were I to be FSG's house master, writing in their end of term report, when it came to Commercial Revenue I would feel obliged to write: "Can do better".
Hugely interesting. Where do you think those other clubs have improved and we have not; as much?

Looking at the graph United have plateaued as have Arsenal. Ignoring City who simply open a tap to increase revenue that leaves Spurs, Chelsea and us. We appear to be still climbing and share a similar trajectory to Chelsea and would appear to be a good place to draw comparisons. Is that purely the London effect do you think or have they done something we haven't.

I am expecting Spurs to drop over the next 12 months (Lower CL performance) but again we have to ask what they have done that we haven't.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
Apparently not. Apparently I simply misunderstood and need to think a lot harder next time. Think that one line about Arsenal has been the most hotly contested single statement I've made since I joined these boards.
I doubt it :LOL: ;)

Why don't you think Arsenal's commercial performance has been awful? It's the worst of the top six. Objectively that's terrible.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
Hugely interesting. Where do you think those other clubs have improved and we have not; as much?

Looking at the graph United have plateaued as have Arsenal. Ignoring City who simply open a tap to increase revenue that leaves Spurs, Chelsea and us. We appear to be still climbing and share a similar trajectory to Chelsea and would appear to be a good place to draw comparisons. Is that purely the London effect do you think or have they done something we haven't.

I am expecting Spurs to drop over the next 12 months (Lower CL performance) but again we have to ask what they have done that we haven't.
On Chelsea being the reigning double winners (league and FA cup) at the start of the period and winning two leagues, 2 FA cups, the League cup, a Champions League and 2 Europa Leagues whilst we won a League cup won't have damaged their commercial appeal whilst trying to keep up with us.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
I doubt it :LOL: ;)

Why don't you think Arsenal's commercial performance has been awful? It's the worst of the top six. Objectively that's terrible.
I'm just now afraid of using the term awful for it :ROFLMAO:

Although I find it funny that Arsenal can be considered to have done poorly by increasing their commercial revenues by £64.8m but Spurs seem to be getting a lot of credit for increasing theirs by £85.5m. To me on cash amount that performance doesn't seem too drastically different but Arsenal have been in decline as a club and up till last season the feeling was definitely that Spurs were in the ascendancy. In 2010 I'd say it was still a "top 4" but during that time City and Spurs managed to turn it into a "top 6" with Spurs getting a big, exciting, swanky new stadium off the ground during that time too. But they only increased revenue by £20m more than Arsenal did. Maybe, with the capacity for growth, the standing of the team, how well they were doing on the pitch, the media hype etc its actually Spurs that have been more disappointing than Arsenal as they should have increased by a lot more in comparison? Just do not understand this obsession with this growth percentage. It doesn't translate the same way when you look at the cash amounts which is what matters.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
I'm just now afraid of using the term awful for it :ROFLMAO:

Although I find it funny that Arsenal can be considered to have done poorly by increasing their commercial revenues by £64.8m but Spurs seem to be getting a lot of credit for increasing theirs by £85.5m. To me on cash amount that performance doesn't seem too drastically different but Arsenal have been in decline as a club and up till last season the feeling was definitely that Spurs were in the ascendancy. In 2010 I'd say it was still a "top 4" but during that time City and Spurs managed to turn it into a "top 6" with Spurs getting a big, exciting, swanky new stadium off the ground during that time too. But they only increased revenue by £20m more than Arsenal did. Maybe, with the capacity for growth, the standing of the team, how well they were doing on the pitch, the media hype etc its actually Spurs that have been more disappointing than Arsenal as they should have increased by a lot more in comparison? Just do not understand this obsession with this growth percentage. It doesn't translate the same way when you look at the cash amounts which is what matters.
Going by cash amounts then we were £19m behind United in 2010. 6 years later we were £152m behind.

Great job by us? I don't think so.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
Going by cash amounts then we were £19m behind United in 2010. 6 years later we were £152m behind.

Great job by us? I don't think so.
We weren't winning anything they were though. This isn't two businesses on a level footing they'd had a 30 year head start chocked full of on pitch success during that time. Would be interesting to see these figures in 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2020 to give a more realistic view of how far back we've been coming from. If we have a period of success from 2020 to 2030 like we hope I can imagine that will have been completely reversed. But commercial deals always have a bit of delay to them and the good times under Klopp will only really start to impact deals now if they have at all yet.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
Hugely interesting. Where do you think those other clubs have improved and we have not; as much?

Looking at the graph United have plateaued as have Arsenal. Ignoring City who simply open a tap to increase revenue that leaves Spurs, Chelsea and us. We appear to be still climbing and share a similar trajectory to Chelsea and would appear to be a good place to draw comparisons. Is that purely the London effect do you think or have they done something we haven't.

I am expecting Spurs to drop over the next 12 months (Lower CL performance) but again we have to ask what they have done that we haven't.
An excellent question, for which, alas, I have a less than perfect answer: in a word, we don't know.

We know next to nothing about the inner workings of each club's commercial department e.g. how they are organised, how the go about identifying prospects, developing contacts or negotiating deals.

Apart from a few "headline" numbers, we don't know how much each commercial deal is worth in total, how much is fixed, or how much is related to the clubs' performance etc.

While the number of a club's commercial partners might be considered to be a factor, i.e. the more partners, the higher the revenue, the data suggests that there is no direct correlation:

Revenue £mPartnersAverage £m
Liverpool
£188.0​
24​
£7.83​
Chelsea
£185.4​
16​
£11.59​
Arsenal
£110.6​
19​
£5.82​
M. Utd
£275.1​
27​
£10.19​
M. City
£227.0​
42​
£5.40​
TH
£135.1​
16​
£8.45​

We don't even know how many commercial personnel each club employs, only the combined total of administrative and commercial staff. And even that number becomes blurred by varying distributions of admin and commercial staff between club and its parent company/companies.

So we don't know the relative "productivity" of each member of each club's commercial team i.e. how much each member of the commercial team generates on average.

Consequently, while it's relatively easy to identify the "what", i.e. the difference in relative growth, it is nigh impossible for us outsiders to categorically and unequivocally identify the "why".