Thanks for asking the questions and sharing the results, MC.
That first one is a proper politician's answer, but what they are essentially saying is the Trust made a decision to back the redev plans and then realised they'd done so without being properly informed, couldn't get a written response from the club and then changed their mind.
It's still in hissy fit territory for me, especially as they themselves go on to refuse to provide a written response to certain questions they've been asked, citing regulatory reasons.
Can they not see the irony there?
I'm not saying they are wrong in refusing an answer, far from it, but how is that different to the club not wanting to respond to written questions? Or would they be sated by a written response from the club that just says "We are not able to answer this due to commercial sensitivities" in response to every question? Hey, it would be a written response, right?? Maybe then they could move beyond the stubbornness and accept the offer of a Zoom call?
Also, interesting that the Trust acknowledge the authenticity of the letter "leaked" by the club. It would be even more interesting if they responded to the allegations made in the letter about soliciting a hatchet job from the national media, wouldn't it?
Complying with financial conduct authority reporting regulations (if factually correct) and declining information to others for 'commercial sensitivities' does not like comparable reasons to me. The Trust are minority shareholders, it is in their interests that they get the best deal for themselves in that capacity just as KT and DB do.
I don't see any irony attaching personally?