Everton appealed and then withdrew it, Forest appealed and failed.
Both took about a month from the initial verdict.
Obviously the scope of their cases was much smaller but my understanding is that deciding whether an appeal has merit or not is not necessarily related to how big the case is.
(Obviously I’m not a lawyer so anyone who knows better please correct me if I’m wrong)
I'm not a lawyer either, but I think the situation is this:
Everton and Forest both pled guilty, Everton two times (once for each breach) and Forest once. Everton were partly successful with the appeal against the first sanction, which took two months and withdrew the appeal for the second presumably as they were relatively safe at the time. Forest lost their appeal and that took about a month. In all cases the appeal was against the sanction, the club's previously having pled guilty.
For the City case, I think the view is that it would be difficult for either party to overturn a decision on a matter of fact, but easier on a matter of judgment, like the effect of mitigating or aggravating factors on the sanctions imposed, in the event that the PL were at all successful.
Personally, as a non-lawyer, I would hope Pannick could earn his 5 grand an hour by thinking up some suitable grounds for an appeal for any unfavourable outcome and despite the drawbacks. I would be surprised if some lawyers aren't looking at all the options now already, but that is an uneducated opinion rather than a sound, legal judgment.
Anyway, if the verdict is expected April at the earliest, an appeal by either party would probably have to be launched around May time which doesn't give much scope for settling it before the end of the season, and then you have the summer holidays. Try getting all these lawyers off their expensive holidays for two weeks in July and August. So it is probably likely an appeal, if there is one, would be heard next season.
All imho, may be bollocks.