I think the parties could (but may well not) write to the panel and say:
1) due to football diary issues, the parties request that any decision is not released between x and y and, if finalised by the Panel, is held over to z at the earliest
2) both parties agree that they would, say, like to receive a draft decision for x days (say 7) for reading, minor changes etc before being handed down in final form. I'd expect the draft from the panel to look like a court draft headed in a similar way to this example I received recently:
IN CONFIDENCE
This is a draft Decision sent to the parties to enable them to submit typing corrections and other obvious errors. This draft is confidential to the parties and their representatives and accordingly neither the draft itself nor its substance may be disclosed to any other person or used in the public domain. The parties must take all reasonable steps to ensure that its confidentiality is preserved. No action is to be taken (other than internally) in response to the draft before the Decision has been communicated to the parties in final form.
This feels possible. If the parties write in agreement, the panel is more likely to follow such requests.
But I don't see how once it is finalised and handed down ("communicated" to the parties or "published" to the parties) in final form, the PL rules demand release ("published" to the outside world) within a few days (as soon as practicable) and if they have had if for a week in draft (lets say), it would need to go the same day as being handed down in final form. Both parties are paranoid about leaks anyway so once they have the decision even in draft the clock is ticking.
The Everton and Forest cases didn't even give the parties very long to make comments - they had a few hours. Again because of leak paranoia.
Like Everton and Forest, it is absolutely possible that the decision is received in draft, handed down to the parties in final form and published to the world on the same day - I think it is unlikely with such a long document but it just will depend on the leak paranoia.
The one complexity here is if the first hearing is liability only ie Part 1, with a sanction hearing to follow, perhaps the parties could construe the PL rules to say no public release of the written decision is required until Part 2 is decided. I doubt it but not impossible. But obviously if there is to be no sanction hearing to follow this proviso wouldn't exist.
