I'm not sure what legal ramifications would exist. They are only liable if the use of that influence in another sphere is either illegal, in breach of contract or otherwise a breach of directors duties to act the best in interests of the club. Unless this leads to some penalty for the club it's not a big issue for their board. And even if there's a chance that it will they might decide that in an expected value sense it is worth letting Gould do what he wants.
The conflict of interest here is not between Gould and the Dogs board. There might be one b/w Gould and the media organisations he works for.
That certainly seems true on the last.
I didn't mean to infer a conflict between Gould and the board, but rather they would face the ramifications of any action that might arise.
Eg, if someone (eg Wests Tigers) were able to put some kind of case that proper process has been subverted by positional influence. There might exist a world where they could mount a decent case.
One would think there might exist at least a small amount of risk.
We just need a journo to run a story about how shady it would look if Galvin (or any player) joined the Dogs due to Gould's influence - that would at the least make risk a talking point.
I imagine then the media side might look and wonder if he is buttering his club bread on their time.