People expecting that Ched's name will be cleared today and he'll be straight into employment with another football club might care to consider:
1. Even though the hearing ends today, the court might reserve its judgment, i.e. not issue its decision on the day of the hearing. So we could have to wait up to, say, another four weeks. (FWIW, in one of the comments to a blog article I link to in the next bullet point below, the blog author - an experienced practitioner - says he thinks a reserved judgment to be likely).
2. If the conviction is quashed, the prosecution can accept that or ask the court to order a retrial. I understand that, ordinarily, there wouldn't be a retrial in a case where there'd be no effect on whether the appellant spends any more time in prison; after all, he's now been release from jail on licence. However, on the UK Criminal Law Blog, an experienced criminal barrister thinks there could well be a retrial in a case such as this owing to its high profile:
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/ched-evans-appeal-to-be-heard-on-22nd-march/. Now, this commentator may be wrong, as even highly qualified professionals can be when offering their views in this way, but there must be at least some possibility of a retrial. And if Evans is subject to a retrial, then I doubt any club would touch him until that had taken place, so presumably for a few more months at least.
3. Even if Evans wins his appeal, whether football clubs continue to regard him as a toxic proposition surely depends on the circumstances. I suspect there'd be a big difference between the court quashing the conviction on what might be regarded as a technicality where the court decides it can't be sure he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the one hand, and new evidence proving conclusively that he's innocent, on the other.
He may also suffer further reputational damage if it's subsequently alleged that he or people acting on behalf harrassed the claimant in the gathering of evidence for the appeal. I know for a fact that there are media outlets who've investigated this. Whether they'll choose to pursue the story once the legal proceedings are over, only time will tell.
Of course, if his conviction is quashed and there's no retrial, then he'll no longer be regarded as being on release on licence, which means he could pursue opportunities abroad now if no one in the UK wants him anyway (rather than having to wait until April 2017, when he'll no longer be on licence, which is the position if his conviction stands). So this would be a substantive benefit to Evans even if British clubs were to continue to shun him.
4. I see some references to entitlement to compensation. This isn't quite the formality people seem to think. Under section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, he's eligible for compensation only if "the new or newly discovered fact [which was the ground for the conviction to be quashed] shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence":
http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/mojas/guidance/#jump-6.
We'll see whether that requirement is met in due course, but media reports so far about the kind of evidence Evans was likely to put forward suggest that the challenge to his conviction was about introducing reasonable doubt rather than conclusively demonstrating innocence. If so, he won't get compensation. For an example of a high profile case where someone initially convicted remains officially not guilty after an appeal and a couple of retrials yet was refused compensation, see here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10922487
I suppose there's technically a chance that he may be able to sue the police or CPS for misfeasance in public office, but that's a very hard thing to do sucecssfully.
5. I see some suggestions that people who initially condemned Evans should apologise for doing so if his conviction is overturned. Why should they? The whole point of this process is that if the conviction no longer stands, it will have been overturned on the basis that there's new evidence that couldn't have been available for the original trial - so how could anyone have taken it into account back then? Or should everyone refrain from commenting on any jury verdict in the criminal court system just in case other evidence later emerges?
6. In any event, let's wait for the Court of Appeal to rule and see what they say. Only at that point will it really be possible to offer an informed perspective on the case.