The AFL has sent a “final warning” memo to all club chief executives in hopes of avoiding more cases like Geelong’s Jake Kolodjashnij concussion waiver drama.

The memo via league chief executive Andrew Dillon was labelled “club obligations” and “promises mature and informed discussions” around the issue of concussion.

Watch every match of every round of the AFL Premiership Season LIVE and ad-break free during play on FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.

It comes as the Cats prepare to respond to the AFL’s ‘please explain’ over the secret Kolodjashnij deal that was first reported by the Herald Sun.

“If you have any concerns in relation to any present agreement or arrangement that may be inconsistent with the AFL and AFLPA’s requirements (as made clear by this communication) you are requested to bring this to the attention of the AFL and AFLPA as soon as possible,” the statement reads.

Speaking on Fox Footy’s AFL 360 on Monday night, Melbourne legend Garry Lyon thinks it “reads it as an amnesty.”

However AFL 360 co-host Gerard Whateley believes it’s a genuine attempt to weed out other potential side deals clubs have made without the AFL’s knowledge.

“This is not an amnesty, this is a first and final warning,” Whateley said on the program.

“This is not a free swing. If you’ve done this, you will not escape punishment. If you are caught out after Wednesday, hell hath no fury.”

It prompted Lyon to question if clubs come forward and “fall on their own sword,” whether it would also become public knowledge.

Whateley responded: “That is an interesting question. I would say yes, because there would be consequences and sanctions in the aftermath.

“If we get beyond Wednesday and you have one of these in the drawer, you are in serious strife.”

Cats prepare concussion waiver response | 04:19

Lyon added: “Because that’s the other thing that went around the footy circles: ‘There’s plenty of these. Don’t worry, this is not an isolated incident’.

“So, this is the AFL saying: ‘Alright, if there is, we need to know about it’.”

It comes after document details of the 2024 deal Geelong struck with Kolodjashnij emerged. It included a “direct replica” of the approved clause used for another player’s attempted return to state league in 2021.

“That’s the thing that got me, the side deal,” Lyon added.

“(The document) made perfect sense to me, it seemed to be reasonable and a club taking care of a player in a really vulnerable position.

“Right up to the point where they say: ‘But we’re abrogating our responsibility. You sign the waiver, you take the personal and legal risk and leave us out of it’.

“That’s when it stunk to high hell.”

‘We buggered up as a club’ | 03:31

Geelong president Grant McCabe confirmed the club’s board met on Monday to discuss the matter as it prepares to submit a response to the AFL’s please explain by close of business Tuesday.

The league will then consider those findings before considering potential sanctions and including a fine that could be as heavy as six figures.

There’s also pressure on ex-Geelong president and AFL chair Craig Drummond and Cats chief executive Steve Hocking.

However, Whateley argued that the league needs to commission an independent party to properly investigate the case with no conflict of interest.

“The AFL executive is being asked to essentially make decisions that affect the standing reputation and position of the AFL chairman. I don’t think any organisation can work through that,” he added.

“I would believe an independent person needs to be brought in with a special commission of inquiry to ask all the difficult questions.

“We spoke to Andrew Dillon on Saturday, he knows this stuff, the law is his absolute brad and butter. But he hadn’t spoken to Jake Kolidashnij. There has to be a layer of investigation that starts with the Kolidashnij family.

“That asks the difficult questions of the Geelong board and studies the emails between the AFL and Geelong as to what advice or guidance was given along the way. How did they come to the formulation of it? And then why did it exist only in the drawer and not to be lodged?

“Those questions, I think it’s difficult for the AFL executive to be able to do that. They’re not down that path at the moment, all they’re exploring is the failure to lodge and that’s not going to cut it.”