Really it is not rocket science. At the start of a season you work out your minimum income and don't spend more than it. If you have a good year you make a profit, if you have a bad year you break even.

You've hit the nail on the head , Leigh were committed to spending the parachute payment and central funding on players this year , unfortunately that involved more than one year contracts , it is our reduction in funding for next year that is now causing us a problem

There's a Fans Forum later this week and an AGM in October, maybe they mean one of those?

Bad business,,,,,pure and simple, If relegation doesn't void contracts then the owner of that contract has bet it all on red and lost!
Leigh and Delboy are architects of their own demise.....same way bradford were.......but they'll happily blame everyone else.....

The same problem remains for any serious top 4 contender.
They cant compete with a 200k salary cap spend so, they either play with the big boys and risk serious difficulties if the dont finish in the top 4 (Leigh) or do the best they can on a shoe string but dont qualify (Batley).

However, the real issue comes with the cliff edge in funding, coupled with the need to try and offer longer contracts.
It's fair to assume that Toronto, Toulouse, London and Fev are spending significantly more than 200k on player wages and whilst Toronto and London may have wealthy backers that can afford to take a "hit", for clubs like Fev (and Leigh) ,it's imperative that they make the top 4.

Ironically, the massive imbalance in funding came in to allow clubs like Legh to compete with the bottom of SL but, nobody seemed to give any though about what happened when the top 4 sides in the Championship didn't make it.

Income is the concern of the club involved......more fans, sponsors or benefactors money will get you the 4 mill you need.....the method of getting that cash is down to each club and in this case, Leigh bet on the wrong horse......

We weren't relegated therefore couldn't put a clause in the contract that removed players for the second year

Relegation FROM SL does void contracts - how do you think Huddersfield, Salford, Halifax, Leigh, Castleford, Widnes, Bradford, London and HKR, got rid of players and survived from going bust after suffering relegation? The RFL introduced that (compulsory) clause after Workington and Oldham ran into financial trouble on being relegated in the early days of SL. However, only RFL approved caveats/clauses are allowed to be included in players' contracts and, especially given the current funding structure, even though a clause that 'if we don't make top 4' would clearly be of benefit for Championship clubs, it is not allowed - Delboy actually makes reference to it in one of the few coherent passages in his statement of last week.

With the one shot parachute payment we spun the wheel not expecting it to come up green , we are now where we are and will live with the consequences

You don't need a relegation clause - you have a clause stating that the contract would be void if you fail to reach the required league position. That is no more difficult to draft and enforce than a relegation clause.

You have a list of clauses set by the RFL that you can include in playing contracts , I don't think that's on the list