Insured property losses from the wildfire that ravaged the resort town of Lahaina in Hawaii last week are

Torrential rains have hit China’s wheat fields at harvest time, leaving crops waterlogged and moldy in the country’s

Arsenal have already made three headline moves in the transfer window, spending over £200 million on Declan Rice, Kai Harvertz and Jurrien Timber as Mikel Arteta looks to bolster his title-challenging squad. Further incomings have not been ruled out but those will likely be funded by outgoings which is the focus now for the North London club. Former captain, Granit Xhaka, has already moved back to Germany in a £21m deal with Bayer Leverkusen while fringe players, Pablo Mari and Ainsley Maitland-Niles have also departed the club. Squad players Cedric Soares, Rob Holding, Nuno Tavares and Albert Sambi Lokonga are all said to be surplus to requirements at the Emirates but have so far failed to attract interest. Other outgoings are also rumoured as Arteta aims to further improve his side and build upon an extremely promising 2022-2023 season, during which they led the Premier League for 248 days. Here’s all the latest on the potential comings and goings at the Emirates Stadium this summer. Francis Balogun Francis Balogun, a newly capped United States international, could be seeking a move after an impressive loan spell at French club Stade Reims. With the new signing of Kai Havertz, and Gabriel Jesus and Eddie Nketiah most likely locked as the club’s two top centre-forwards, Balogun may want out of the Emirates. Balogun has made it clear that he is unwilling to go on another loan spell, raising the question of whether Arsenal are prepared to allow the talented 21-year-old attacker to leave permanently. According to Sky Sports, Arsenal have set a price tag of £50m on Balogun, who has been training alone at points during the club’s US pre-season tour, with Inter and AC Milan as well as French clubs Monaco and Marseille showing significant interest in the attacker. Nicolas Pepe Arsenal’s record signing, Nicolas Pepe, seems highly likely to depart from the Emirates this summer. Due to his high wages and underwhelming performances, the Ivorian winger has failed to live up to expectations, prompting Arsenal to seek a way to move on from what has been regarded as a very poor transfer decision. Although Pepe appears guaranteed to leave the Emirates, his next destination remains unclear at this point. The Telegraph have reported that Nice, the club where Pepe spent last season on loan, are not interested in a deal to bring the 28-year-old back to the club. Additional reports from football.london suggest that the north London club may well consider terminating Pepe’s contract, should a deal not materialise by the start of the season. Kieran Tierney With the Scottish left-back losing his place in the starting eleven after the arrival of Oleksandr Zinchenko last season from Manchester City, Tierney is a player that Arsenal are considering letting go as they look to raise funds for additional signings. The 26-year-old joined Arsenal from Celtic in 2019 but started just six games last season due to injuries and the aforementioned form of Zinchenko. According to The Evening Standard, Tierney is attracting interest from a host of clubs, most notably Newcastle, with the left-back recently saying that he is “happy” at the club while on a pre-season tour in America. Mohammed Kudus Playing for Ajax, Kudus can play in a more attacking central midfield role as well as out on the right wing and could be the latest player to leave the Dutch club as they continue their cost-cutting measures having failed to qualify for the Champions League. The Ghanaian international could cost up to £40m, according toThe Daily Mail, but the north London club could face competition from Chelsea with David Ornstein reporting that the west London club have made contact with the Dutch side about a move for the 22-year-old. Read More Tottenham transfer news: Harry Kane, Giovani Lo Celso, Conor Gallagher, Tosin Adarabioyo and more Liverpool transfer news: Romeo Lavia, Joshua Kimmich, Cheick Doucoure, Thiago and more Chelsea transfer news: Michael Olise, Marc Guehi, Moises Caicedo, Callum Hudson-Odoi and more Manchester United transfer news: Rasmus Hojlund, Dean Henderson, Sofyan Amrabat, Eric Bailly and more Erik ten Hag happy with display in Manchester United’s victory over Arsenal Emile Smith Rowe ready to bounce back from injury-plagued season MLS All-Star boss Wayne Rooney struggles to take lessons out of Arsenal thumping

Matthew Manhard sued Khloe Kardashian for firing him after he allegedly injured his knee

A criminal investigation in Texas over the hesitant police response to the Robb Elementary School shooting is still ongoing a year after a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde

As Manchester City prepare for a week that could fulfil a 15-year objective, the discussion within the rest of the Premier League has not been about their undeniable greatness. It has still been about these 115 charges for alleged breaches of Financial Fair Play rules. Opinions were naturally shared in many executive lounges on the last weekend of the season, with particular attention to how any decision on Newcastle United’s prospective shirt sponsorship deal with events company Sela – which, like the club itself, is primarily owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund – might be relevant to City’s case. There is a belief it could lead the Premier League to a situation where it is accused of treating City by different rules to Newcastle. Pep Guardiola was of course concerned with none of this as he prepared for the FA Cup final. While the Catalan and senior City figures feel this is all overplayed, especially as the club absolutely insists upon its innocence, many others in football stress quite the opposite. There is a belief the true scale is not being grasped, whether City are exonerated or not. Such is the strength of feeling, for now just bubbling under the surface, that many sources from London to Nyon describe it as a “potential Super League moment” in terms of the ructions it could cause. There is “fury”. And, just like that moment back in April 2021, the Premier League is facing severe pressure from several different areas. There was first of all the agitation of the other clubs, who pushed for investigation in the first place. More immediately, there is obviously City’s strenuous defence, one source describing the legal back and forth as “like war”. Most coverage has so far been given to numerous legal challenges and obstructions, particularly as regards the objection to Murray Rosen KC as head of the Premier League’s independent judiciary panel. In terms of the club’s tactics in the case itself, The Independent understands City’s expensive legal team are primarily arguing this is not about “fraud”. That accusation is after all why the entire story has such gravity. City are accused of failing to accurately disclose information, with owner funding alleged to have been disguised as sponsorship from two Abu Dhabi companies, airline Etihad and telecommunications group Etisalat. The Independent has been told the club’s lawyers are arguing this is not about any of that but instead an “associated party issue”. That, covered on page 132 of the Premier League’s handbook, relates to parties “having material influence over the club or entity in the same group of companies as the club”. It is why Newcastle’s Sela case may be relevant, since that would be judged under the same regulations. Those regulations were actually updated after the Newcastle takeover, as the other 18 non-state-owned clubs raised concerns over how they could be outstripped by inflated sponsorship deals from companies in autocratic states such as Saudi Arabia. As it stands, Financial Fair Play regulations allow clubs to make a loss of £105m over rolling three-year periods, so long as that is covered by cash injections from owners. Anything exceeding this would be a breach. In terms of arguing that the current case is about associated parties, City actually attempted the same tactic with the previous Uefa case, that covered the same ground. They insisted that was – under the European body’s terms – a “related party issue”. Uefa’s Investigatory Chamber stated it wasn’t about any of that, and that if it is about failure to accurately disclose information it doesn’t make any difference if the parties are related or not. The Court of Arbitration for Sport came down on the governing body’s side in this aspect, as covered in paragraphs 124 to 135 of the judgement. Paragraph 127 reads that the panel found “the related party issue is separable from the charges based on the Leaked Emails”. CAS did ultimately overturn Uefa’s verdict due to alleged breaches being “either not established or time-barred”. Should the Premier League go down the route of looking at associated parties, it could mean the process going on far longer – potentially years – since this is an exceptionally difficult area to properly prove. More complications arise from the nature of autocratic states, where rulers have almost total executive power. It is why many Premier League executives are keenly watching what happens with the Sela example, especially since the relationship there is more direct. The events management company and Newcastle United have the same primary owner in PIF. This is not to suggest there is anything untoward in that sponsorship, and it is understood there has already been sound advice that it represents “fair market value”, especially given Newcastle’s Champions League qualification. A growing feeling among the other Premier League clubs – who are now acutely conscious of the wider effects of state ownership – is nevertheless that such deals should not be looked at through the prism of associated parties or fair market value. The increasing argument is that they need to be looked at through the prism of equity, since that is what money that ultimately comes from the same owners could be perceived to represent. While there are a number of different ownership examples such an approach could relate to, many sources believe it shows the specific complications of allowing autocratic states to own football clubs. One argument is that the Premier League needs to prohibit associated party sponsorships altogether. “By allowing such rules,” one source explains, “you are effectively saying that, if it’s fair value, it doesn’t matter if it’s equity or sponsorship.” For now, some think there is the possibility that Newcastle will be looked at on a different basis to City. If that happens, it might be setting a precedent for City to follow, or – as one source put it – “write their defence for them”. If the Premier League do look at the latter through associated parties, though, it could see the case go on for over two years, maybe up to four. Other clubs are already furious at the length of time it has taken up to now, forming another pressure on the Premier League. It is why some football figures, as reported by the Independent last week, have long advised the competition that they should have independent units to deal with such cases. They believe it is a farce that the competition could be clouded by such uncertainty for so long. The eventual conclusion of City’s case could lead to an explosion One argument that has been made is that, such is the complexity of a case like this, it requires more forensic financial expertise rather than the extent of legal advice the Premier League is understood to have leant on. “They don’t know the scale of what they’re dealing with,” were the words of one source. The Premier League are absolutely not commenting on anything to do with the case, but a fair counterargument that could be made is that the four-plus years the investigation took shows how seriously this has been dealt with. For all the rancour under the surface right now, though, the eventual conclusion could lead to an explosion. If the panel does reach a guilty verdict, there is first of all the likelihood that City would seek an arbitration hearing before further potential appeals in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Other Premier League clubs would meanwhile seek the strongest possible punishments – potentially up to expulsion – and the prospect of legal action has privately been raised by individual clubs. Premier League rules do allow clubs to sue each other. If the punishment is weak, though, the current belief is that could lead to a “mutiny” within the Premier League. That may even happen if City are exonerated. All of this comes amid a more febrile atmosphere surrounding the dominance of state-owned clubs, especially as City come to the brink of a treble and Newcastle so quickly and impressively reached the Champions League. It has meant more attention than ever is being paid to the Sela sponsorship. State politics are just one more under-current to the City story, too. As one expert on the area said: “How would UAE-UK relations be affected if one of Abu Dhabi’s prize assets was punished like that?” Read More Premier League sponsorship rules set for major test as Newcastle eye shirt deal with Saudi company Supercharged Newcastle’s four key transfer targets to strengthen for Champions League Young players taking their life should not become a norm – Tareiq Holmes-Dennis The differences between old allies Ten Hag and Guardiola that will decide cup final The year that sportswashing won: A season that changed football forever

Greta Gerwig's earlier works 'Lady Bird' and 'Little Women' were critical successes but 'Barbie' has catapulted her to superstardom

Twitter has added video calling – and left it turned on by default. The feature is now being officially rolled out, Elon Musk confirmed. He said it was an “early version” of a tool he has been hinting at for a year. Video calls are part of Elon Musk’s plans to make Twitter, which he has renamed X, into the “everything app”, offering a wide array of different functionality. For now, video calls are limited to the iOS app, and appear to be rolling out slowly. But they are also switched on by default. The system means that all accounts are liable to receive calls from accounts you follow, or those run by people whose number you have in your address book. To be able to call someone, they must have sent at least one direct message to your account. Users have the option to change that setting, however, either to switch it off or to change who has the ability to make calls. From the direct message settings, users can either disable it entirely or change it so that they can receive calls from people in your address book, from people you follow, or from all “verified” users. Making phone calls is limited to premium subscribers, who pay the monthly subscription for what was once called Twitter Blue. It can be done by opening up the DM menu to start a conversation with someone. If the feature is enabled, then a phone icon should show within the direct message conversation, and tapping audio or video will start the relevant kind of call. Users will receive a notification that they are being called, and will get another telling them they missed the call if they do not pick up. Read More The Twitter app just went very, very strange TikTok prankster Mizzy arrested ‘on suspicion of perverting course of justice’ Study finds ‘deepfakes’ from Ukraine war undermining trust in conflict footage

Since Justine Triet’s “Anatomy of a Fall” premiered at the Cannes Film Festival where it won the Palme d’Or, Sandra Hüller has been dogged by a question: Did she do it

A 48-year-old man accused of igniting a New Zealand hostel fire that killed at least five people claimed that someone else started the blaze...

Ukraine said any ships heading to Russian ports may be military targets, in a tit-for-tat response to a

Some of Locklear's friends told the publication that the actress may have started drinking again following several rehab stints