You've lost me at least on that bud, what are we talking about here?
Separately, why on earth have 1894 ran a poll on whether to sign an NDA on a specific topic? I don't get why they wouldn't want to know what the proposal is that they'll be able to (presumably) report on at some later time.
The club did a series of consultations for the planning application, of both locals and fans. They pretty much had to, as it is a major application, but they did it extensively and thoroughly, and documented it fully.
Which is the wording 'locals and fans' 1984 use that makes me think they are talking about the same thing.
The club put out a pac report with the application that broadly concluded locals and fans were generally on board. 1894 are saying 'they weren't, and asked them to 'change the plans'.
I think they are talking cross purposes as I read it. That consultation would have been for planning purposes and the development as a whole, and while fan groups may have raised what they want to see, it would have been absorbed into the overall.
For example, if the club put forward plans for 8000 seats and fans say we like that but would like to see xyz. The club can still conclude they are supportive of the proposals at that stage and level of detail, and more will follow. Which is exactly what they have done.
They list out the feedback, and most reading it will likely find what they raised. But the club (or rather their planning consultants) will then take a view whether that is supportive of the development more generally from a planning point, or if it is against it. Some of 1894 may look at that and think, no we said we want to see xyz so we are not 'onboard'. But they are likely thinking detail rather than planning principle.
Again all this is predicted on my assumption that the 1894 comment relates to that run of consultations and the published conclusion they are mildly disagreeing with. Given the wording used and the fact I haven't heard of any other consultations in the interim, I think that is it.
