The argument has been that money has played a major part in the creation of our folk songs since the days of the minstrels

No, the argument has been that someone having got money for the creation or money having been involved somewhere along the line of transmission or in performance does not bar a song from being a folk song.

You appear to be suggesting that the songs were created for "the sharing of the money ... I didn't read it that way.

You seem to be responding to things that people didn't say.

Please remind me what the points that need answering are.