From a purely rational perspective, Manchester City's win over Bayern Munich last week was not that relevant.

The 3-2 victory means that a win or a score draw in Rome on Matchday Six should see them through - provided CSKA don't beat Bayern in Munich. (But, of course, if that happens, we'll likely be in some parallel dimension, doomed for all eternity and nothing much of anything will matter.)

Psychologically though, it's a huge boost. Possibly, the kind which, if you're a clever manager, you use to turn your entire season around. City were fortunate - very fortunate - considering that they somehow contrived to turn a one-nil lead at home and against 10 men into a one-two deficit.

Sergio Aguero's hat-trick was in part the result of individual errors by Bayern players, not anything City built. That isn't meant to take anything away from Aguero - on the contrary, being able to punish opposing mistakes is essential - but it does underscore how poorly City are playing right now.

The City side we became accustomed to last year wasn't just a potent attacking force, with five players reaching double figures in goals scored in all competitions, they could beat you in so many different ways. This version - devoid of David Silva and Yaya Toure, but also the wide runs of Aleksandar Kolarov and the route one option of Edin Dzeko - sometimes becomes predictable and easier to contain.

Toure, at least, will be back today against Southampton at St Mary's. A few months ago, nobody would have predicted these two would face off in a "second-v-third" clash at this stage of the season. It's a credit to Ronald Koeman and the way his Saints crew have performed that only Chelsea are ahead of them.

And yet, realistically, this is the kind of game where you expect City to make a statement, to show they have been galvanised by events of Tuesday night. It doesn't necessarily need to be a win, though three points would enable Manuel Pellegrini to leapfrog Koeman, just something to keep the momentum going: a convincing performance, a show of confidence, some defensive solidity and some attacking oomph that goes beyond Aguero.

If not, that Bayern result - the only time anyone has beaten the Bavarians this season, apart from the German SuperCup back in August - will really be wholly irrelevant. And you fear their European challenge will, not for the first time, simply peter out, this time in the Eternal City.

Here's another traditional ritual marking the end of November. Almost as much of an entrenched tradition as Black Friday, in fact. Every year around this time somebody compiles and publishes the total amount each Premier League club has paid out in agent fees over the previous two transfer windows.

Then there's agonising, gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair as folks moan about money "being sucked out of the game" instead of being spent on "grassroots" or "the lower divisions". This year, the amount "going out of the game" is around £115m with Chelsea (£16.7m) and Liverpool (£14.3m) the worst offenders.

This entire exercise, run without context or itemisation, is so pointless and demagogic it's beyond belief. For a start, the figures include payment for a whole bunch of services.

These include contract renewals, securing youth players and acting as intermediaries (both to attract players, but also to place them elsewhere, whether on a permanent deal or on loan).

Sure, if these payments are just a way to hide bungs (read: bribes) then it's wrong and shameful. But the question that ought to be asked is whether they saved a club money. Chelsea used an intermediary to sell David Luiz to Paris Saint-Germain for £50 million, a world record for a defender.

Would they have recouped that much without a middle man? Who knows? That's for them to decide. But it seems pretty obvious to me at least that if someone can fetch you £50m for David Luiz, paying him, say, £1m is money very well spent. Over the last two windows - covered by the £16.7m they spent on agent fees - Chelsea broke even on transfers.

They added Cesc Fabregas, Nemanja Matic, Diego Costa, Filipe Luis, Loic Remy, Mohammed Salah and Kurt Zouma; they lost Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, David Luiz, Demba Ba, Romelu Lukaku, Juan Mata and Kevin De Bruyne. It's fair to say - I think - they came out well ahead. What if it was paying the "right" agents the "right" amounts that made it possible.

The other point about these numbers is that they only reflect the fee paid directly to the agent. But what if, say, I buy a player for £20m and the various agents and middlemen are due to get £2m between them. And what if I hike the fee up to £22m and then the selling club pays out the £2m? Bingo! My numbers become meaningless. (The exercise also works in reverse, obviously.)

Most bizarre of all is this lamenting that the cash doesn't go to the lower leagues or grassroots. First of all, what do you think lower league clubs do with cash? They spend it on wages and transfers. And - yep - agents.

All you are doing is breaking up the loot into smaller bits. Grassroots? Sure. It would be helpful to build a bunch of 3G pitches and train a bunch of coaches.

But whose job is it to do that? You have a government with the power to tax and then spend that revenue on stuff the electorate want. If enough voters want this kind of spending, they can elect MPs who'll pass laws to tax Premier League clubs further and use that revenue on pitches and coaching courses.

My guess is that it won't happen, mainly for two reasons. First, because folks realise that taxation is a balancing account. Overdo it and your economy stops growing while your tax base shrinks because the foreign billionaires who bankroll clubs (there are more than a few) figure they can make more money elsewhere. Second, because when push comes to shove, most voters probably would rather see tax revenue spent on other stuff, like the NHS or education.

But, heck, when it comes to mindless moaning and easy targets, agents and Premier League clubs are the lowest of low-hanging fruit.