Wrong, it means the defence could be more damaging than the settlement terms
Is this not a contradiction of your earlier post that settlement wasn't an admission of guilt or that the EFC didn't have a reasonable defence against the charges?
I would suggest that, if a body has a reasonable defence against a charge, then said charge wouldn't have been levelled in the first place. That defence would have been offered during the investigation.
If the defence could have been more damaging than the settlement terms I would also suggest this is closer to an admission of guilt than a denial.
From the AFL's point of view the settlement addressed the most pressing need which was to retain the integrity of the finals programme. Their subsequent statements about the unlikliehood of infraction notices is possibly more a statement of hope than it is of certainty. It's a lay down misere that the only organisation that wants infraction notices less than the AFL is the Essendon Football Club.