it's really a rhetorical 'if'.
it's fact that they are indulging the artist based on the postponed release.
there's no way that the artist has any rights to the marketing (or re-marketing in this care), distribution, or release of a work from four decades ago.
the ball is squarely in EMI's court as to their indulgence (or 'support' or 'respect'?) to the artist on this count...
-e-
my point is that I wonder where you got the *fact* that it's on Sims's wishes that the title is changed. That was only posed as a hypothesis here on this thread AFAIK.
no?