Yes, it does. I apologise for any offence caused by me phrasing my sentiments in a careless way - this is what comes of trying to do several things at once.
The question posed seemed to me to be - why is there a perceived lack of public support for the project? Why is there talk of people being "bitter" and acknowledgement of the existence of "detractors of the Willis organ scheme"? Any restoration or reconstruction of this nature ought to be regarded as A Good Thing and especially so where the original builders have been exclusively involved on the project for over a hundred years, indeed frequently at considerable financial loss to themselves.
One possible answer, which I do not necessarily support, would be to consider the perception of the Willis firm during the 70's and 80's; whether or not it may have been felt to have lost some of its former greatness, and whether or not this perception may have, in some quarters, stuck to this day, despite the reality of the situation as it happily now stands. It logically follows from this that those who hold this belief, however misguided they may be, may consider that other firms may possibly have been better equipped to handle the project. The high-profile restoration of RAH was an example of such a large project, not an example of a genre. I do not necessarily agree with that sentiment, you understand, it just seemed to me to be an answer to the question which my original, badly-worded post, asked - why on earth would people not support the project? This is a genuine question, and I am interested to know the answer to it.
The history of the hall is very dramatic and very sad, full of disaster and destruction, and lacking in proper financial support, instead relying on the generosity and enthusiasm of a few individuals, not least members of the Willis family tree who went way, way outside the remit of a commercial company to keep the project alive. I find it very sad indeed that after over a hundred years of individual dedication and financial struggle the situation is still not fully resolved. It's even sadder that at this joyful time, when the instrument is speaking again and substantial completion is now actually in sight, there are others who aren't delighted about this. I too want to know why...
It has to be said that the firm acknowledges on its own website that things weren't always as they should have been in fairly recent years, and is rightly proud of the steps taken by the new management team to reinvigorate the firm and its reputation, moving into what I assume to be the former Rushworth premises, recruiting staff and so on. I am sure everyone, including their competitors, wish them well and hope they will be just as innovative and pioneering in the future as they have been historically.
Please understand that I was not trying to slag anyone off or even express a personal opinion, just question whether or not this issue of perception of reputation may be a key issue in the minds of those who tragically show no support for the scheme. Sadly, a lack of input at this end failed to make this clear and consequently there is a need to apologise. Please don't shoot me.