Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Manchester United will have to show an increase of £32m for last season to match the Gunners, while Chelsea will have to improve their income by nearly £50m, Liverpool by nearly £80m and Tottenham by £127m.

The reason for this good news, say Arsenal, is the Emirates effect.

More importantly, they argue that the results are proof that to inject money into the north London club.

Arsenal now get an income of £3.1m per every home game while total match-day income for the season has doubled to £90.6m.

With Arsenal now able to seat , the number of people coming through the turnstiles rose to 1,615,591, up 54% from the previous year.

And whereas the club sold 400,000 programmes when they were at Highbury, they now sell almost a million.

Privately, Arsenal accept that there are transportation problems on match day, caused by station closures and restrictions.

But that is beyond their control and demand for season tickets remains strong. The waiting list is 41,000.

Despite the fact that Arsenal earned £10m less from television - they did poorly from that great television cash cow, the Champions League - they made a record operating profit of £51.2m, an increase of 274% on the last season at Highbury.

This was before player sales and depreciation were taken into account.

Arsenal's total income from football is now £177m, 51% of it from match-day revenue and 25% from broadcasting revenue.

The club also hope to make money from property. Next year, they will get £30m from Ashburton Grove and £60m from Highbury Square in 2009.

The good figures are also reflected in the bank balance. At the end of last season, the club had £73.9m tucked away.

So does this mean there is more money for Arsene Wenger to spend?

Arsenal insist there has never been a problem for Wenger if he wants to go into the transfer market. The point is he does not often spend all the money he is given.

As managing director Keith Edelman told me: "We gave the manager a budget and he did not spend it."

Indeed, Gunners chairman Peter Hill-Wood relayed an interesting story to me from a dinner he had with Wenger not long ago.

Also present was Danny Fiszman, the club's largest shareholder who speaks impeccable French.

"We told Arsene: ‘If we give you £100m to spend on players what would you do?’," said Hill-Wood. "Arsene replied: ‘I would give it back.’

"The manager has money. If he wants to buy, it is up to him. We do not need foreign investment for Arsene to buy players.�

The financial resources Wenger has at his disposal is a crucial argument as talk of an Arsenal takeover hots up.

The ousted vice-chairman, David Dein, is now chairman of Red and White, a company owned by the Uzbek businessman Alisher Usmanov.

Usmanov now owns 21% of Arsenal and Dein believes the club needs foreign investment if it is to compete with the likes of Chelsea and other clubs.

The Arsenal board vehemently disagree and view today’s figures as proof that their Emirates strategy is working.

This is all the more interesting given that Dein, when in power, opposed the idea of Arsenal borrowing heavily in order to build a new stadium and wanted to share the new Wembley instead.

Wenger not only limits his spending, he is also a shrewd seller in the transfer market.

So in the season just gone, Arsenal made a profit on player sales of £18.5m.

Not quite as much as they made the previous year, but then the latest figure does not take into account the sale of Thierry Henry to Barcelona, reportedly for £16m. That transfer will be part of next year’s figures.

Arsenal are also proud that their salary structure, once considered very tight, is comparable with their rivals.

Last season, they paid out £89.7m in wages. This works out to just over 50% of turnover which most prudent accountants consider a good figure.

We shall have to wait to see what Chelsea paid out.

Despite borrowing heavily to build the stadium - their total debt stands at £346m - Arsenal say the Emirates effect will continue to produce vast sums of money for years.

The message here for Tottenham and other clubs with big ambitions but small venues is unmistakable.

So where does all this good news for Arsenal leave David Dein and his ambitions to return?

Publicly, Arsenal, who have not yet settled terms over his departure, will not comment on Dein.

As far as they are concerned, he is history.

One well-placed Emirates source told me: "David always sees himself as number one. He wants to be chairman. The Arsenal board put Arsenal first. The board see themselves as the custodians of the club. That is the difference."