I think it is fair to point at his coaching record in terms of his ability to get his message across, although it's not quite the same thing. It's also fair to point out he was sacked from the Brumbies job due to a mass player revolt after said ***le. A tough nut is needed but so too is a diplomat.
The whole 'still playing international rugby' is a massive rob herring. If Ulster get their money's worth out of Pienaar - which is unquestionable - then why wouldn't Munster get their money's worth out of Moore? I can't pretend I wouldn't prefer it if Pienaar did retire, although that's more to do with fatigue levels than missing games (which at least offer opportunities to younger players), but the example he offers and the quality he brings for the big games outweighs that. Hugely.
Besides, if people are really serious about the idea of getting 2 World Class players for each province, does anyone think that can actually be achieved if you bar all players with international careers? That basically restricts the provinces to Kiwis, English, Argentines, Aussies under 60 caps, and the really old/irritable. It's not a big enough pool, not when the rest of the world wants these players (and can offer more) and most of the possibilities there ranged from somewhat to highly theoretical.
It is a fair point that maybe Moore wasn't needed/would have mucked up succession planning. Maybe. Moore/Sherry reads a lot more like a top team than Sherry/Scannell. Best turns 34, but is resilient as hell, in a position where age doesn't matter too much, and has a contract until 2018. It's quite possible he will retain the position right until the end. 30 is no age for a hooker, so Strauss/Cronin could be tussling for the shirt all the way to the next World Cup. Behind them are Herring and Sherry - both already capped, and second choice hookers have a lot of responsibility as is. Not sure if Harris-Wright deserves to be part of this conversation or not (ditto the possibility of Annett returning post-Best). It's not like Moore wouldn't have offered a lot to Sherry and Scannell in terms of leadership and knowledge either; he is the World Class player Nucifora is talking about, and I'm not sure how many others will be willing to move to Munster. Still, Scannell's a big talent would needs to be kicking on, and the succession position is reasonable rather than strong, so I can see where people are coming from. I'm 50-50 on the idea...
... but every time you put more restraints on a coach's ability to do his job, where his reputation and livelihood on the line, you limit the coaches you can get. There is a balancing act there.
Snoopy, you talk about sharing the wealth, but the wealth has to agree to this and so far it's not done so. Everyone says it should happen but no one seems to know how to get it to happen. Until someone works out how to do it, I'd hate to see it as a building block of Irish rugby strategy, and if Nucifora is building off that happening I think his plans won't work.
The Irish rugby system is better than some give it credit for. It's not perfect, but nothing is, and I reckon it'd be a lot easier to take on the wrong path than the right path. I'm not sure how much needs to change... and to what extent the change wouldn't be best managed by telling the big 3 they'll be giving 10 U-23 players 400 minutes a season. I mean, this is the real big issue right? Young players not getting their chance quick enough. So why not just cut right to the quick and tell them they will give the young players their chance. Fiddling with NIQs and trying to persuade players to leave their home province seems window dressing when they can go just for that - and if the big 3 don't have 10 young players worth that much Pro 12 time each, then the big problem is the academy. In fact, 10 might be a bit low.
Finally - the Ulster lock thing. FvdM is out of contract next season. That would leave us with 3 front line locks, 1 of whom will be an Ireland fixture and 1 of whom has a decent chance of plenty of games there. That's not really enough (please don't make me include Stevenson and Browne) although we could probably make do. Still, it's a reasonable enough place to get an NIQ lock in. If we're going to, why not get the best we can? I fully agree with the IRFU turning down a request for a project lock in their late 20s, but if we do end up signing a NIQ lock, and it ends up being a lesser player than Romano (which is basically guaranteed), I'll be ******.
Sure, I'd rather Ulster signed two NIQ back-rows, but I don't think it's unreasonable for Ulster to target a lock - there is a use for one and a desire for one. How heavily does this impinge on Ireland? Maybe not ideal, maybe not noticeable (Tuohy's probably never going to be more than fringe but O'Connor does need pushing and long term is part of the succession (you'd hope)). Maybe they should have told Ulster they could sign Romano, but they'd be starting 2 IQ locks for a minimum of two SDC group games and... I dunno, six Pro 12 games.
It does strike me as utterly absurd that the provinces are finding out whether these players are acceptable after they've put in the leg work and made approaches though mind. Why can't Nucifora say "No big name tight five forwards, no projects over 26 etc.etc." ahead of time?
edit: Has to be pointed out there's a lot of what ifs here so far mind and really, we should wait to see the end of the season and the signings before saying too much, if we're going to be fair.