I don't see that anywhere in the statement! I did see this though:
"We asked the club not to be directly referenced in their statement, which was announced today, as we disagree with some of the plans as they currently stand."
Note the focus on disagreeing with "some of the plans" and also as they currently stand. I'm not sure exactly how you think 1894 should've approached this, given that we're an atmosphere group first, second, and third. Do you think if the club came back and offered us, say, 5000-6000 safe standing places as opposed to 3000 that 1894 will knock it back because it doesn't meet with our perfect Utopia of 8000 safe standing? There's this thing called compromise but at the moment that ball is back in the club's court. Our door is still open.