Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Foreign coaches: Inside information/IP flow and conflicts of interest
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cruz_del_Sur" data-source="post: 1089790" data-attributes="member: 55747"><p>Interesting. Short answer, i don't know, but if you dont mind, i'll have a crack at it, speculating, course.</p><p></p><p>To begin with, i am not sure why the nationality (i.e. 'non-native coaches') plays a role. This could happen either way. </p><p>Second, I am 99% sure everyone assumes the one joining will disclose information, directly (this is what they do) or indirectly ('in my experience, this way of doing things is the best and i've seen the results first hand'). Not sure you could claim fixed formation training constitutes some sort of intellectual property. </p><p></p><p>In my experience, Eur and South America mostly, the right to work is paramount. Sure, there are non competes, people sign em and rarely challenge them. But when they do, in my experience (again) they tend to win. Unless you prove they are stealing some sort of intangible (client lists, some sort of formula/method that is registered intellectual property, etc) it is very, very, very difficult. It is also true that companies have bigger pockets and can handle the legal process better, but when and if shove comes to push, employees have a lot of leeways. </p><p>Add the fact that this would be an inter-jurisdictional issue in the overwhelming majority of the cases and pursuing any legal action seems far stretched at best. </p><p></p><p>Ledesma with Aus/Pumas, Cheika, Wyllie, Graham Henry... the list aint short. </p><p></p><p>And it's not as if a new coach would bring some magic powder that would change things overnight. He might bring an idea or a method, but as revolutionary as those might be, it would still need a LOT of effort and work to put that to practice and to make it yield results.</p><p></p><p>Coaches are not a plug and play objects. Context, current squad, opposition, etc... all play a role. If it were so easy people would replicate it and you'd expect the gap between Tier 1 and 2&3 to decrease a lot and very fast. That is not happening which suggests any secrets, if any, are not what makes the difference. </p><p></p><p>I would be very, very surprised if, for instance, something as silly as all line out calls werent changed once a coach leaves, especially if he leaves to a team that could face the one he left. I mean, we did as 11-year-olds. </p><p>It'd be stupid not to. The cost of doing so is negligible and the risk is not small.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cruz_del_Sur, post: 1089790, member: 55747"] Interesting. Short answer, i don't know, but if you dont mind, i'll have a crack at it, speculating, course. To begin with, i am not sure why the nationality (i.e. 'non-native coaches') plays a role. This could happen either way. Second, I am 99% sure everyone assumes the one joining will disclose information, directly (this is what they do) or indirectly ('in my experience, this way of doing things is the best and i've seen the results first hand'). Not sure you could claim fixed formation training constitutes some sort of intellectual property. In my experience, Eur and South America mostly, the right to work is paramount. Sure, there are non competes, people sign em and rarely challenge them. But when they do, in my experience (again) they tend to win. Unless you prove they are stealing some sort of intangible (client lists, some sort of formula/method that is registered intellectual property, etc) it is very, very, very difficult. It is also true that companies have bigger pockets and can handle the legal process better, but when and if shove comes to push, employees have a lot of leeways. Add the fact that this would be an inter-jurisdictional issue in the overwhelming majority of the cases and pursuing any legal action seems far stretched at best. Ledesma with Aus/Pumas, Cheika, Wyllie, Graham Henry... the list aint short. And it's not as if a new coach would bring some magic powder that would change things overnight. He might bring an idea or a method, but as revolutionary as those might be, it would still need a LOT of effort and work to put that to practice and to make it yield results. Coaches are not a plug and play objects. Context, current squad, opposition, etc... all play a role. If it were so easy people would replicate it and you'd expect the gap between Tier 1 and 2&3 to decrease a lot and very fast. That is not happening which suggests any secrets, if any, are not what makes the difference. I would be very, very surprised if, for instance, something as silly as all line out calls werent changed once a coach leaves, especially if he leaves to a team that could face the one he left. I mean, we did as 11-year-olds. It'd be stupid not to. The cost of doing so is negligible and the risk is not small. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Foreign coaches: Inside information/IP flow and conflicts of interest
Top