It didn't feel like a rich area to me and that's coming from a Wiganer. Amazing stadium though and thoroughly enjoyed my experience there.

I mean it is in an area that costs a lot, ie hotels etc..

Was disappointed to read that the final has a contract at Wembley until 2027. Feels like the worst option to me. Would prefer to either stay in London at stadiums with more realistic capacities like Tottenham or go north to somewhere like the Etihad.

Final crowds have declined a bit over the last decade but maybe not as much as some people say - remember that the RFL was counting 10,000 club Wembley tickets prior to around 2017. So the crowd has been in or around the 50s or 60s for over a decade and inevitably impacted when clubs like Huddersfield or Catalans make it.

I thought it was a decent crowd considering cost of living and Huddersfield's turnout. Most importantly it looked good on TV which for me should be the priority for any games on terrestrial channels.

Lived in London 40 years, so let’s be clear. Tottenham is not in a rich area. There was serious rioting there as recently as 2011. There are certainly no tourists, and hotels may be slightly more expensive than in St Helens, but by London standards are very reasonable..Not such a bad place to watch sport in an excellent new stadium, but an area a bit short of interest for staying in.

I have already stated that I meant for visitors to the area.

Had we played Hull KR in the final you could have added another 10k onto the gate (and would have been spectacular).

The official attendance suggest 5 out of every 6 seats were occupied.

It doesn't take a genious to see how far out of whack that is.

even with a considerable amount of free tickets it becomes the 2nd worst Cup Final attendance since the 2nd WW (excepting Covid).

So I am not sure why people are lauding Spurs in such a way, it was way off the mark for all kinds of reasons, financially being the most important probably.

The attendance will include the 1895 cup and the fans won't necessarily have hung around.

They are lauding it because it's a great stadium and it felt special in a way that Wembley used to. Plenty of drink and food options and was great to be in such a spectacular ground. You can 100% see the NFL elements in there with it being a venue Vs a traditional ground.

If dragging two northern teams down to London is the right option is another argument, BUT if we have to go down there Spurs wins all day, every day in my book.

Agree.

Give Spurs ST holders a deal and get as many people in there as possible (The Ashes game would have been interesting if it had gone ahead) and grow that as the London base for RL. The facilities were exceptional.

but do people really go for the "Facilities" esp when there is a credit squeeze on?

I am trying to get to the bottom of what the day actually was, sure it seemed to have good amenities, but did it work out financially compared to say the Etihad?

Are we talking about the same thing here, or have you just ignored the 1st part of my post?

Again, there are two arguments...

Making people go down to London and if it's worth it, is one argument.

If Spurs is the best ground in London is the other. All I'm saying is that in regards to this last point - it is and by a country mile too.

No, I don't really care where we are going there has to be a few reasons wherever we go.

1 - It works financially for the game and the spectator.
2 - It helps promote the game to a wider audience.
3 - It provides the players a platform to excel.

Would you have been happy with Wembley?

I am not backing anything in particular, but I am not convinced the Spurs fiasco has worked out well for the RFL, certainly with my first point.

Wembley does provide point 3 in that list and has provided plenty of point 1 and 2 in my list over the years.