Hang on. If he goes the recruitment process and comes away the preferred candidate by the half a dozen or so people involved then what's the issue?
Personally I'd prefer some else but if the process throws up MOC then I'm happy to support. I'd back these guys over most of yours opinions. Respectively.
The issue is this organisation only last year went through a similar process in the High Performance Review, and made the worst possible call by re-appointing RG, that was clearly and widely proclaimed to be the worst possible call at the time by all and sundry, and was subsequently proven to be so. So their decisions are not necessarily correct even though they are the authority.
They've told us this time it will be different, with a far more comprehensive process featuring independent members (ARU reps and Mallett), but now we hear yet another old boy from the car park is frontrunner despite his key role in the team's worst performing area, the back line. That's bound to raise eyebrows.
For me, it depends on whether MOC was asked, and if so how he answered, the question "Why has the Reds' backline been poor since you've been coaching it and what is your plan to rectify the situation?"
Maybe MOC had a brilliant answer to that question that satisfied the independents. But surely it would be a hard ask to give a sufficiently brilliant answer to put him in the lead of such a field of candidates when he's starting with the significant handicap of being the current coach of the main problem area?
Obviously we're not in that interview room so we don't know. We can only accept the decision of the panel, and if they tell us MOC is the best candidate, I'll accept that. He'll get the chance to prove them right next year.