Looking from afar I think you both have points to different degrees.
It was immediately apparent that the boys didn't break any laws as it was in the opening statement from the club, though being honest it still surprises me that they got around the child supervision laws. But what do I know?
Personally I find it all quite confusing and would love to know more about the child supervision laws in Australia. I run kids' camps in Slovenia and try to adhere to the stricter child supervision laws from the US simply because they're about as tough as you can get. Based on these laws this situation would clearly be breaking the law even without a formal complaint as this student was under his supervision. However, I don't know how it is in Australia.
Who would be to blame entirely depends on whether Okunbor received the correct training, that his participation and knowledge of the supervision guidelines were documented, that he had appropriate support & guidance before and during the sessions etc. etc. If he did then he'd solely be responsible, but if not then it'd be on the club.
Based on American law the club would've literally had to list such things as:
- places where the players can touch on a child's body
- what type of physical contact they can have with a child
- child abuse, and what pertains to it
- topics they can discuss and not.
- things they can't do at any cost which includes discussing anything sexual, connecting with a student via social media, being alone with a child etc.
Judging by what Greenburg stated, all of these guidelines were followed which means it's on the player to answer the charges. Just because it's no a criminal act, doesn't mean it's not a violation of working with children. Again, I don't know what it's like in Australia but perhaps this is the basis of what the club has against Okunbor which makes it fully justifiable to sack them. It depends on the contract they have with the players, but in his case I just can't see how there's any real reason for them NOT to sack him.