Hearsay means something that can't be substantiated. To someone who doesn't know the people involved, then without evidence, there's no way of substantiating the claims.
Now, to ME, as someone who's been following stuff for years, it's fairly obvious that Bagger, for example, is significantly more trustworthy than the current WST board, because Bagger has been posting here for years and has been consistent, has to my knowledge never lied or said anything that's not true, while the board can't say that - with the claims about the loans being one occasion where it's clear they were lying on at least one occasion.
There is evidence that the Trust board have been, at the very least, deliberately confusing about the loans.
https://wst.org.uk/wp/?p=1353 says
https://wst.org.uk/wp/?p=1251 says
The "were not picked up on at the time" strongly suggests the rest of the Trust board were unaware of the loans, which is obviously not the case - as they admitted in the post further up, the people who were Directors of the club were, at the very least.
If there is similar evidence to prove that someone at the club contacted employers, I think Four Four Two, Two Hundred Percent and others would absolutely be interested. But without that evidence, I don't think the major magazines/newspapers/sites will go near that claim.