Sky Eye.

[Starry]

We had Sky TV which we got rid of when Uncle Ken sold the rights to the Leeds game to Viasat and now we have the dodgy foreign dish. And no Sky/cable TV.

When we had Sky we had that Sky Eye thing so I could change the channel on both the playroom/kitchen set top boxes.

Is there a similar thing to the "Sky Eye" that can be used on an NTL/Virgin box?

 

[clapham_gull]

Yes there are.

I presume you have a cable running from one room to the other ?

Alternatively you could buy a video sender which does the same job but wirelessly.

I had one that didn't work so was a bit resistant to them, but recently purchased one for my uncle from Maplin and it works a dream.

You can also potentially send a DVD signal to the other room as well as well as box the signals from your cable box and the dish. The box I bought had a number of "inputs".

You can only send one signal at a time though - so you couldn't send the sat feed and the cable feed to different rooms at the same time, but of course you could be watching one in the main room and another upstairs.

The controllers will work because the kit sends that back.

Was about £49 - and has a demodulator built in - which essentially enables you to use with older TVs with no scart connection.

You can also buy further receivers.

Works a dream - but you do have s small box in each room where you want to send the signal, plus a a small box next to the Sky box.

I've got Sky Eye working (via a cable) but there are other products on the market that do similiar things.

Essentially your box will need to have an "old fashioned" RF out for it to work with the existing cabling.

I have no idea about cable boxes, but MOST freeview boxes for instance do NOT HAVE RF out.

( The SKY boxes have a dedicated higher powered RF out at the back for Sky Eye to make sure it can travel over a longer distance than usual. )

Best place to buy seems to be Maplin, unfortunately the staff aren't that clued up on them in my experience.

 

[Starry]

Thanks! Yes, there was a cable going from one to the other with the Sky Eye. That's fine since the two TVs are pretty much back to back on either side of the wall.

The rest of your message has me entirely confused! I just want the same sort of thing that I can plug in the back of the box but watch the TV and change channel without a whole other set top box in the other room. It is just for the two TVs to watch the same channel.

So this is going to be way more expensive than the £5 we spent on the Sky Eye?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

We had Sky TV which we got rid of when Uncle Ken sold the rights to the Leeds game to Viasat....

How much did he get for that?!

 

[clapham_gull]

Basically - you can only use the existing cabling if your new boxes can send a signal down it.

I don't know anything about your kit - but I know the sky box has a dedicated output at the back for sky magic eye.

It also does the job of receiving back the remote control signal in the other room.

Now - the cable might do the job of sending the signal out (if either of the boxes have a RF out socket) but you'll still need something for the remote.

Maplin sell is some kit that goes both ends of the cable to deal with the remote control.

In fact maplin have loads of stuff like that - and actually have a good returns policy if you can't get it to work.

 

[Starry]

Not sure, it was part of the Bet 24 sponsorship thing.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Not sure, it was part of the Bet 24 sponsorship thing.

Ah! Are you happy with 'Uncle Ken'? Do you think he is there for a quick buck or there for the long run or to feed his ego?

 

[East Staffs Gull]

I think that they are officially called 'TVlinks'. We called them 'magic eyes' and had two or three of them in the house. However, a few months ago they all seemed to stop working. Do they have a limited life?

 

[Starry]

Ah! Are you happy with 'Uncle Ken'? Do you think he is there for a quick buck or there for the long run or to feed his ego?

Relatively happy.

He is definitely there for himself, but for him to be able to bog off and have made any money he has to turn us around. We go down, we don't own our ground/training complex, no players worth anything, a pretty bleak outlook - no one is going to buy the club from him then and they certainly wouldn't pay him any more money than he and his buddies paid for it in the first place. I don't know where he is going to get his 'quick buck' from.

Unless of course, he is the man behind Teak and has purchased the ground/training complex himself and is paying himself the rent. Who knows on that score.

He is all about his ego though. Whatever happens. But I want to like him, time will tell whether he was good or bad for the club. At the time he stepped in nobody else was going to and the Inland Revenue weren't prepared to wait too much longer. But were we better going to the wall and starting again than we have been with Ken. I dunno. He'll be judged a lot this summer when we've gone down with ticket prices, investments, new players etc because we will (finally!) be free of the last of the Ridsdale era contract payments.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Relatively happy.

He is definitely there for himself, but for him to be able to bog off and have made any money he has to turn us around. We go down, we don't own our ground/training complex, no players worth anything, a pretty bleak outlook - no one is going to buy the club from him then and they certainly wouldn't pay him any more money than he and his buddies paid for it in the first place. I don't know where he is going to get his 'quick buck' from.

Unless of course, he is the man behind Teak and has purchased the ground/training complex himself and is paying himself the rent. Who knows on that score.

He is all about his ego though. Whatever happens. But I want to like him, time will tell whether he was good or bad for the club. At the time he stepped in nobody else was going to and the Inland Revenue weren't prepared to wait too much longer. But were we better going to the wall and starting again than we have been with Ken. I dunno. He'll be judged a lot this summer when we've gone down with ticket prices, investments, new players etc because we will (finally!) be free of the last of the Ridsdale era contract payments.

What is teak? Sorry, I am a bit lost on that front. Presumably a company of some sort. KB did manage to get himself a nice little nest egg from Chelsea, who were clearly heading for problems if they could not be sold. I would imagine he does own ER & Training Ground in some respect. I can't imagine he is doing this out of the good of his heart OR to feed his ego.

I love the snippets from the Observer. 'Said and Done'. Risdale practically paraphrased himself hen he took over Cardiff. Something along the lines of 'living the dream'. If I was Cardiff, I would be very afraid!

 

[Starry]

Teak are a company based in the British Virgin Isles who purchased Elland Road and Thorp Arch from 'Jacob Adler' in March 2006. Nobody knows who 'Teak' are, nothing has been filed at Companies House to identify them. All we know is they purchased ER and TA from Adler. No idea how much they paid either. Teak could well be Bates, it's debatable how much of his own £££ he has put into Leeds (if any at all) and whether he is just a front man for the Forward Sports Foundation who purchased half of the club with Bates 'as their leader' and not much else. Quite who the FSF are, we don't know. But they own 50% of the football club. Who owns the other 50%? Could be Mickey Mouse for all we know.

Ridsdale has a lot to answer for. But hey ho. Right now he and Dave Jones are offering to pay for all the Leeds fans who travelled down last week the chance to travel back and have a cup of tea and a chat with Jones about how he is an innocent man and we are mean nasty people who should never chant his name again. The latter is probably true, but I'd pay good money to see Ridsdale sit in the same room as a few Leeds fans!