It's somewhat interesting to compare and contrast NZF/Hudson and Nix/Merrick.
Similar in that they were appointed to head coach roles and have actively been involved in overhauling the style of play and development paths of players.
Merrick has worked with the incumbents (possibly with Board placing the restrictions) to implement the strategy effectively.
Hudson and NZF have run roughshod over the incumbents. In my opinion, it's yet to be determined if NZF's approach is working. There have been no wins under Hudson (yes, a cheap shot).
It's clear from the Nix example that you don't have to clean out the incumbent coaches and backroom to achieve results.
In the slightest defence of NZF, if they believe that Hay/Zorocich are better coaches and willing and available then they wouldn't be doing their jobs by not enquiring about their interest in joining the NZF team. The treatment of Figueira and Temple though seems deplorable. I agree that we don't know the full story (perhaps Figueira and Temple were offered other roles in NZF but declined and pursued a settlement) but NZF just haven't been forthcoming with anything.