Not that I am one for conspiracy theories :) But how about this one?
The APT case determined that the unlawfulness of the treatment of shareholder loans led to the voiding of the whole APT regime. Interestingly, the panel accepted (and the club didn't really counter) that the APT rules were an integral, important, vital even, part of the FFP rules.
What if the club has been arguing that the treatment of shareholder loans since the inception of FFP should also lead to the voiding of the whole FFP regime on the same basis. And then what if the panel agrees? And then what if the club and the PL have agreed to delay the 115 judgment until the old FFP regime is no more anyway (this summer with the replacement of PSR with SCR)?
Would that be enough to explain the "delay"?