Whilst I agree with the broad ethical aspect of your thoughts we unfortunately live in a corporate world.
Whilst I suspect Allan left under a cloud and post this becoming an issue, and frankly don't care as anything that ruins a minute of Eddie's day is a win for me, I do think the situation around Craig and Mel is different.
They left way before any of this became an issue for anyone, there could have been no knowledge within the club hierachy outside of himself and Allan at the time of what had transpired. GWS were very sad to lose them and have suffered ever since, given the nature of the guy and the fact that his wife will continue to do her role I suspect he will also do as much as possible unofficially.

The clubs official statement is legal positioning should the AFL decide to impose draft sanctions and I completely endorse the stance.

In the last 7 months the AFL has done much to limit the giants "juggernaut".
List size limit changes on the fly, Salary cap reduction on the fly, The imminent removal of the Albury region from their zone (hopefully with some grandfathering as the club has significantly invested in some of the candidates for next year, but probably not).
Whether some of it is a correction or an over-correction is debatable, I think most of us cop it as there would have been no way they expected us to do as well as quickly and the heartland really does have it's skirt up, rightly so in some aspects.

The good news bad news part is debatable, the story plays totally different in the two states as you can imagine.
Without intimate knowledge of culpability I believe the sanctions imposed under section 2.3 are appropriate for Lachie, probably a bit harsh on Lambert and a bit lenient on Allan, is as I suspect it was his plan.

@Len - I agree a best case for GWS would be potential loss of draft picks in 2017 rather than 2016 for the reasons you mention. I haven't read their statement but do you think the club would challenge any penalties the AFL attempts to impose this year or simply accept them like other clubs have including Adelaide a few years back ?

They look to have positioned themselves to challenge any loss, but at this point I'm guessing..
I have tickets to attend the draft on Friday week, hoping we have all the picks the=n we have now that's for sure..

Word is draft penalties will be announced in the nest few days, apparently the AFL has threatened the club to accept them or face further reduction in the Academy zone, seriously hope we ignore the threat and challenge.

Draft week is upon us, I saw this article regarding last years draftees on the AFL site

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-20/a-year-on-how-your-clubs-2015-draftees-fared

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-23/no-2016-draft-penalties-for-giants-over-whitfield-case

GREATER Western Sydney will not be stripped of picks at the 2016 NAB AFL Draft over the Lachie Whitfield affair.

AFL.com.au understands if the Giants are to be charged, they will have the opportunity to argue their case before the AFL Commission. There is no time for that to happen before Friday night.

While its understood the Giants’ No.2 pick was never in jeopardy, the AFL had been weighing up whether to strip the League’s newest club of selections 15 and 37.

The door remains open for the Giants to be stripped of picks in next year’s draft.

Did Carlton get a chance to argue their case before being hit by City Hall with sanctions for salary cap breaches?

I don't recall it happening at the time.

I "think" the variable is a presence of vs lack of presence of clarity on the wrong doing at club level as apposed to individual level,

The AFL and ASADA both admit no wrong doing has been found under any performance enhancing umbrella, thus the prosecution under "bringing the game into disrepute" instead of the individuals involved, which I have .already stated I agree with.

Whole bloody saga has been a pea ans shell game, my biggest concern was and still is an illicit drug finding would have been his third strike, whilst respecting the privacy of the individual knowing that might have at least given some reason for such clearly odd behaviour.

Agreed on disrepute finding being outside of ASADA.

What about when Ben Cousins brought the game into disrepute, did he get a chance to argue his case before being hit with penalty by City Hall?

He probably would have if he thought he might succeed, same with these three, they either didn't to keep potential penalties lower (as reported), or because they felt they got off lightly, not close enough to know which, but the option certainly exists under law to do so.

I guess the same could apply to any corporate actions, but in previous cases as well as punishing individuals the AFL has also punished the clubs. As Jason suggests the clubs have pretty much "accepted" punishments and given the way the AFL operates I would think they would be keen to avoid this precedent - ie a fair hearing - becoming more common.

Totally agree, under Gillon they have been totally about negotiated outcomes, suggest that the club refused to bend over the barrel within the timeframe permitted, time will see if they do post this draft

@greame - it is really quite bizarre, unfortunately the media seemed to get behind the "pre-finals" bye.

I actually prefer the "split round" model (whether that be 8-1, 7-2, 6-3 or 5-4) with the split rounds in May and July.

Even with the current pre-finals bye if the AFL could cope with teams having "games in hand" the early season split round in 2017 could potentially have had 10 matches due to the Gold Coast-Port Adelaide bye in Round 9, so could have had 8-2, 7-3, 6-4 or 5-5 depending on a best fit of what fans, clubs and broadcasters want.