Essentially the contract was for £60m a year but we arranged cash payments from Etihad for more than that in three years. Harris added those payments up and let's say they came to £230m. He took that as evidence that the Etihad contract was therefore nearer £80m a year and that we'd underreported it as £60m in the accounts.
What he didn't understand was that if the contract was for £60m a year, then that's what we need to show in the accounts. The cash actually received is irrelevant.
He also didn't understand (or conveniently chose to ignore) that if the contract was for £60m a year over 10 years, we'd get an average of £60m a year but that could be paid in any way, with a lump sum upfront and a lower annual payment for example. So in the 'missing' 2014/15 year, we only received a small sum in cash, as we'd received higher payments in the other 3 years. In other words, it all balanced out over those years.