内容摘要：The Senate followed the House in voting to effectively kill the law, nullifying a waiver granted to the state that had allowed it to set stricter auto emissions standards than those set by the federal government.

The Senate followed the House in voting to effectively kill the law, nullifying a waiver granted to the state that had allowed it to set stricter auto emissions standards than those set by the federal government.

As has been widely reported, a second round of redundancies is on the way, this time affecting the football department. The reductions are likely to affect the scouting, medical and science teams.There has been no word on whether that is likely to be the end of the matter. But it is clear, from axing of staff trips, free lunches and other perks, nothing is off limits in Sir Jim Ratcliffe's determination to make United a leaner organisation.

But these cost-cutting initiatives can only do so much. As with any Premier League club, by far the biggest expenditure is on transfer fees and player wages. If this season is any guide, United, who have spent in excess of £900m on transfers over the past five years and whose last annual wage bill they confirmed at £365m, have been awful at both of these fundamental elements.United say funds will be available, but what does that mean?There are a few factors at play. As Ratcliffe outlined in March, they owe £272m in outstanding transfer fees, a significant percentage of which - £156m - is due this summer.

Overall losses to June 2024 were £113.2m. Since then, United spent £14.5m sacking former manager Erik ten Hag and his staff.Despite this, no-one at United is rejecting the widespread belief Wolves forward Matheus Cunha is going to join in the summer.

The Brazilian has a release clause of £62.5m. Quite how much of that has to be paid immediately is not known. However, it is difficult to see how it cannot at least in part be funded by player sales.

Now for the unquantifiable bit. The better - and faster - United can sell, the more flexibility they will have to buy. The longer it goes, the less easy it becomes to strike deals for the right price and the potential for mistakes grows.While these laws have been welcomed by many South Africans, some members of racial minorities feel they make it harder for them to get jobs and government contracts. There has also been criticism that they can lead to corruption, for example when business opportunities are given to friends and relatives of officials.

Among the critics have been the Democratic Alliance, which despite being part of the governing coalition, recently challenged the amended Employment Equity Act in court, saying it would "make far more people marginalised in our economy than they already are".Sports Minister Gayton McKenzie recently came under fire when a job in his department was advertised as being only open to the Coloured, Asian and white populations.

He defended this move, saying he was applying the Employment Equity Act and ensuring "all races are represented", because most of the people in his department were black.It doesn't look like it.