That rather more grievous matter of exposed bungs will have to wait a little longer, apparently.

Lord Stevens's investigations into illegal payments to clubs or officials, presented to the Premier League chairmen and the media, is not yet a dead duck. But as an exercise in reassurance that the investigation would produce a "result", Monday's interim report wasn't exactly bungho, though, was it? It wasn't one of those TV Crimewatch occasions when presenter Nick Ross says "several viewers have rung with the same name, and officers are at this moment on their way to make an arrest. . ."

It was more of a "wait and see", to quote his lordship.

Certainly, there was a glimpse of some statistical cleavage to keep the customer, or in this case the media, satisfied.

Eight unnamed clubs were being investigated further, over 39 transfers. Reportedly, another 12 transfers, involving seven clubs, have been scrutinised but are unlikely to be taken further because foreign-registered agents are implicated.

Yet, the former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police did not exacty radiate confidence with his declaration: "If we can't expose this, I don't know who can." Neither does the fact that of 150 agents contacted only 65 responded fully instil a sense of anticipation.

To look at it from the more sanguine perspective that Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore prefers us to view things, 89 per cent of the 362 transfers examined by Stevens & Co had been "signed off", an interesting expression which tends to put you more in mind of a GP validating a worker throwing a sickie than a clean bill of health. But privately, Scudamore must be praying that Stevens's investigation will ultimately bring some transgressors to book; if not for the police or Inland Revenue to prosecute, then for the FA to take forward.

It is 11 years since George Graham became the only perpetrator of a bung whose guilt was proved. Since then, there has been unrelenting rumour and innuendo. In 1997, a Premier League report uncovered "a deep-rooted culture of fraudulent agreements".

Then there have been the whistleblowers, in particular, Luton manager Mike Newell, whose words back in January instigated all this activity. But not another individual, or club, has been shamed since 1995.

In the light of this, there needs to be at least some prima facie cases produced if soccer is not to curl up and die in embarrassment, as far as its integrity is concerned.

It could be that, come early December, Lord Stevens will return with a full report with sufficient "juicy stuff" as Everton chairman Bill Kenwright described what was absent on Monday to assuage the sceptics. Yet, the curious aspect is the time limit. Why have Stevens and his grandly-named "Quest" team of accountants and investigators been given only two further months to complete their work?

"The inquiry will be thorough, detailed and robust, " says Stevens. "As an old policeman and an old detective, I will wait for the evidence to come in."

In that case, why not three months, or, why not. . . as long as it takes? It has reportedly cost £600,000 so far, but in terms of Premiership finances that is not much greater than an agent's cut on a medium-sized deal. Stevens has promised "forensic examination of agents' bank accounts, on-shore or offshore", and though FAlicensed agents could leave themselves open to an FA misconduct charge if they don't produce information, it is not legally enforceable.

That is part of the problem; whatever his stature as a cop, Stevens can no longer brandish a warrant card and suggest that suspects may like to accompany him down to the nick. One suspects that the final report will be heavy on recommendations for the future. The concept of transparency will feature heavily.

As Stevens was at pains to point out, "prevention is better than cure".

What those, with the game's interests at heart, will be more interested in, though, is whether, to borrow from Crimewatch, certain characters should be having nightmares.

To return to more trivial matters, at least Merseyside Police didn't bring themselves, and soccer, into ridicule when they inquired, as they had to, into the antics of Joey "Peaches" Barton after the final whistle at Goodison. They are to take the matter no further. In fact, isn't there an argument to be made that those spectators who apparently complained about Barton's baring of his backside should be charged with wasting police time?

Why the FA couldn't have adopted a similar sensible stance and maybe quietly reminded him that it wasn't clever or amusing, and not worthy of a man who, on talent alone, would not be far removed from the England squad, is difficult to comprehend. Instead Barton will be up before a commission, and presumably fined. Wasted time for all involved.