I’m not much good at supposing. I’m a working man,. My boss does the supposing, but i’ll try one.
Let’s say company y restructures, bring in an old board member to serve in an overseeing capacity, and as new staff are implemented, some become redundant. Let’s say, that the media find out, and are still warm from the sales of papers about a “sex scandal” at that club, and the outgoing staff member is female. Well, said outgoing employee had some hard times in their job, and some of the other redundant staff feel hard done by, so said media organisation grabs a quote or two. Hop, skip, jump, now that media outlet can imply all kinds of misconduct without risking libel. Good times.
We could hypothetical this a hundred ways - flimsy facts make strong breeding grounds for conjecture.
We’ve got a statement by the club regarding an outgoing staff member (a statement, no doubt cooked up, after being contacted by a media outlet sniffing for a story) and we’ve got a whole bunch of unattributed conjecture.
This story is nothing.
BUT. This isn’t an isolated incident. There’s been some dodgy reports (putting it mildly) coming out of Docker central, and it’s not unreasonable to be suspect of the club.
But let’s not all give way to confirmation bias, shall we?