https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Alexis_S%C3%A1nchez_2017.jpg

After weeks of uncertainty, months of drama - football's worst kept secret is out in the open with Alexis Sanchez moving from Arsenal to Man United, and Henrik Mkhitaryan moving the other way. As with any long drawn saga concerning the future of a high-profile player, a lot has been said and written. Some of the stuff said has been sensible, most of it couldn't be further away from the truth. So in public interest (and my own mental peace), I've decided to bust most of the myths associated with Alexis Sanchez's move to Manchester United.

Man City pulled out because of the money

Even Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp is in agreement that City couldn't have pulled out of the deal just because of the money involved. Maybe it has more to do with the fact that City have Leroy Sane, Raheem Sterling, Bernardo Silva, David Silva, Sergio Aguero and Gabriel Jesus vying for limited spots in their attacking quartet. Maybe it has to do with Man City being spellbinding in the league this season and not needing Sanchez anymore. Or maybe it has to do with Sanchez realizing that he would be a lot more important to Man United, a team that could be built around him, where he is guaranteed to be one of the main men. At City, he would be one of the many talisman in that squad, and that might not have excited him at the age of 29. This is possibly his last big move and he doesn't want to waste it being shuffled around by Pep. Also, its not like he was going to play for free or a packet of chips a week at Man City, so we should probably stop treating it as such.

Man United will recover their outlay in shirt sales

A very common myth that surrounds any high profile transfer is the theme that the buying team will recover their outlay on an incoming player through shirt sales. This couldn't be further away from the truth. United signed a world record shirt deal with Adidas worth $75m (per year) a few years ago, and there seems to be a lot of confusion around what such a deal entails. The yearly payment from Adidas to United is a form of licensing fee, which gives Adidas access to the Man United brand. Adidas in return sell merchandise with the United logo on it, and most profits from said sale is pocketed by Adidas, and not Man United. So fans buying 100,000 jerseys with Sanchez, 7 at the back would result in Adidas making most of the money, not United. Also, most of those jerseys would have been sold in any case, just with a different name at the back. So its not an incremental gain in terms of shirts sold, but just a change in the player name at the back.

United have been breaking the bank ever since Alex Ferguson called it a day

Its not that United haven't been spending big bucks ever since the great man called it a day, but its the fact that United have always traditionally been big spenders. United are a very attractive club, run as well as a Fortune 500 company, who have had deep pockets well before the likes of Chelsea and City became rich overnight. United have never been afraid to spend on a player who can improve the team, even during the Alex Ferguson era. It is often forgotten that Roy Keane was signed in 1991 for a then British record fee (at 15.2% of the clubs revenue at the time). Dwight Yorke was signed in 1998 for £12.6m (at 12.9% of the clubs revenue), Ruud van Nistelrooy was signed in 2001 for £19m (at 13% of the clubs revenue), Rio Ferdinand was signed in 2002 for £29.1m (at almost 20% of the clubs revenue). It is important to note that Eric Baily was signed for almost the same amount of money that Rio was signed for, over a decade later. Like Arsene Wenger himself admitted, any club that has massive commercial revenues such as Man United should be allowed to spend it in whatever way they deem fit. And a detailed study of United's transfer dealings in the premier league era will show they have done exactly that.

Arsenal are doomed

Sure, they've just lost one of their most influential players but in Mkhitaryan - they've signed a very able replacement. Most high-profile departures from Arsenal have been one-sided affairs with Arsenal failing to get a replacement over the line in time. Yes, Mkhitaryan had spells of inconsistency at United, but his class was never in question. There is no reason why Arsene Wenger can't get the best out of him. And with the impeding arrival of Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, Arsenal fans can look forward to those two rediscovering their fine form from their time together at Borussia Dortmund. The way I see it, this was one of the few transfers where all sides can leave the negotiation table happy.