This is a tough one to analyse but, on balance, I think they must have voted no. Here's my thinking:
1. They are aware of our feelings on this issue and of the possibility that a significant number of fans would stay away should they have voted yes.
2. They publicly pledged to vote no, even if this was framed as an 'intention'.
3. There would have been a discussion prior to the vote, during which it would have become quite clear that the yes vote was never going to win irrespective of how PTFC voted.
4. They would be aware that the truth has a habit of leaking out.
For me point 3 means that there would have been absolutely no strategic benefit to be had from voting yes. To do so would be to chain yourself to a corpse. Not only that, it's a zombie corpse that's going to come back to life and eat your intestines for lunch. This isn't to say that they didn't want to vote yes, deep down; more that the circumstances dictated that they had to vote no. This latter point may explain the poorly worded statement - it has a huffy tone to it - although to be honest I'm struggling to explain that on any rational level.