England cricket in india

[japitts]

---

@BezKent wrote:

Yes. I have the cricket package only - at least that is now possible! I watch mainly cricket and rugby - never football of any gender.

---

To be fair, if you're a rugby fan then you'll already have a subscription to either TNT and/or Premier/Viaplay.

Premier/Viaplay show the URC/Pro14, TNT have the English & European club game sewn up. Sky's interest has historically been in the internationals.

[SamH295]

......and now low and behold, a 3.50 increase to sky sports. I'm switching it off. 

[Alanwigster]

The ultimate irony has been seein Sky advertise during the ad breaks in TNT's coverage, if no ones watching why bother? I know the argument was that India wanted to much for the rights but was it any more than England charged them? Surely going forward a recipricol agreement should be made so the same station has both home and away matches and the charge is a nominal amount, or is that just to easy?  Last point population size doesnt equal spending power. Now I'm off to Dharamshala, its worked out cheaper in the end !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TimmyBGood]

@Alanwigster 

I'd gently suggest the words 'nominal amount' have no place in modern sporting culture (or rather, business)

[japitts]

---

@Alanwigster wrote:

 I know the argument was that India wanted to much for the rights

---

I don't think that was the issue, Sky made a commercial decision to focus on other rights.

---

@Alanwigster wrote:

Surely going forward a recipricol agreement should be made so the same station has both home and away matches and the charge is a nominal amount, or is that just to easy?

---

Commercial reality of sports media rights contracts doesn't work this way. Rights holders want the best deal for themselves - mixing up the revenue obtained from pay-TV and balancing it against the exposure that FTA broadcasters offer.

Broadcasters then decide which contracts they are bidding for, and what the rights are commercially worth - whether they will attract new customers, avoid loss of existing ones, etc.

[nolte]

---

@Alanwigster wrote:

The ultimate irony has been seein Sky advertise during the ad breaks in TNT's coverage, if no ones watching why bother?

I know the argument was that India wanted to much for the rights but was it any more than England charged them? 

---

There would also be time factor, so even if cost were the same the accessibility and audience would be smaller as it would be on while people are asleep.

The advertising would tend to be bought as a package, hence why ads tend to be on in similar order each ad break, rather then specifically going "we want ads on during cricket"