My comment about Gatland in this instance would have been equally stated against any other coach who might have said it!!
I cannot see who makes the first approach is relevant when deciding whether the player gets picked!
Imagine Lancaster, for this example only, saying he would pick Strettle as Clermont had made the first approach but, say, refusing to pick Armitage as he had approached Toulon.!!!!
Ridiculous, self serving and soooo open to abuse!!
The thing is, your post and then your responding post just stated that you don't like Gatland which is why you made the post. How about you talk about the actual issue instead of just hating on the person who is clearly trying his best to do HIS job properly.
Like your last post for example you actually make a very good point and form a post which can be discussed instead of individual hate.
I definitely agree on some of it and see what you mean.
In the agreement made between the WRU and the regions, if a player does not accept a central contract when offered (or misses a deadline like Faletau has, although we don't know the whole story) I think it is wrong to just scape goat it and say that since he is being sold, he is except.
I would agree that it is setting a very bad precedent.
On the other hand, I would note that in the agreement, following the World Cup, Gatland will have the two exceptions of players who were not contracted outside of Wales before the agreement but whom have not accepted a central contract (Jamie Roberts for eg and priestland after World Cup) but also I think an added player (Faletau possibly). Gatland is not abusing it currently and has explained how it works in interviews, explaining he truth instead of the outright nonsense some of the bbc articles contain.
If Faletau goes to bath and Gatland calls him up, that doesn't automatically mean he is abusing 'gatlands law', as long as he stays within that agreed amount of exceptions (I think 3 after World Cup) however if he goes over that mark and calls him up 'because he was sold for financial reasons but refused a central contract too' then I'd agree that it would be abuse and undermining.
People need to understand the agreement though (here but especially the media), it's not being abused as some seem to think it is already and some people clearly don't understand the position Wales is in. If we had the money other nations have then we could keep every player on Wales, but sadly we are no where near that.