I disagree on the transparency thing. 

If I had a business that competed with other similar businesses and had to deal with suppliers that were becoming tighter with what they provide while also being courted by my competitors, I'd be loath to talk about the what I can do/can't do, the what I'll pay/won't pay, and what my plans to address all of it on the web.  

We were told GT couldn't renew the licenses, yet many aren't satisfied with that explanation.  While I understand the disappointment (lost some of my favs too) I don't understand the refusal to accept GT's answer and the demand more details.  I'm not sure customers of other businesses demand those businesses share their plans and competition strategies.  On the web, no less.  I guess my point is that customers of a private business should have no expectation of transparency from that business.

There is another issue that concerns me.  There might be other sites, but I know of none that pay royalties to the artists/licensing fees to the publishers.  To put it another way. GT is not ripping off the creators and providers of the music as other sites presumably do.  That makes GT's business more difficult and more expensive than its competitors.  And a business model to be respected for how they treat the musicians' music we care for.

YMMV.