On Gaelic Games: On Budget day it's timely to reflect that for an amateur organisation, the GAA gets a lot of stick on the subject of money. In ways this is a natural consequence of being such a massive presence in the community but it is none the less paradoxical.

There is the obvious issue of amateurism itself. For all that the traditionalist view of this subject can sometimes be excessively self-righteous, it is perfectly valid to advocate the volunteerism argument and question the financial consequences of paying elite players because of its potential impact on the delicate network of local loyalties that has long upheld the GAA.

Despite the vehement opposition at club level to any dilution of the principle, the shorthand is frequently presented as a well-upholstered Croke Park refusing to share the wealth with those who are responsible for generating the gate receipts that fund over two thirds of the GAA's revenue.

Danny Lynch and the Croke Park secretariat are weary pointing out that the association's income and expenditure account is published every year and the surplus painstakingly spread between infrastructure and development grants yet the fatuous throwaway of the 'Grab All Association' is still heard.

Similarly the increasingly vexed question of the Guinness sponsorship is at times perceived in narrow financial terms. The current grumbling over what is felt to be the selectivity of the criticism from medical quarters about the appropriateness of promoting alcohol in the association misses the point.

The prickly 'why shouldn't we?' and 'what about everyone else' responses to this controversy overlook the most wounding subtext to the criticism, that is the assumption that the sponsorship is all about money. The All-Ireland hurling championship is a blue-chip product but money in the broad sense was never at the heart of its sponsorship.

The main reason for the popularity of the Guinness association has been based on the company's strong Irish identity, success as a marketing partner and its sensitive handling of what has become an ever-more awkward area of advertising.

Now that we're only two months from the first rugby international at Croke Park, it's worth recalling that for all the fury vented on the issue of the limited suspension of Rule 42 and whether the rental money would be worth the historic initiative, the decision to open the venue was taken for largely magnanimous reasons.

Croke Park negotiated a good deal in terms of the income that will be generated by leasing but during the debate that preceded the historic vote in April 2005, those who spoke in favour of relaxing Rule 42 did so by a margin of more than two to one on the basis of extending a helping hand to neighbouring sports and sportspeople.

Croke Park itself sometimes gets swept up by the financial resentment directed at the GAA. Although the ground has now largely emerged from a long and anxious period of serious indebtedness to become a spectacular asset and revenue earner, this progress has been incrementally delivered over a decade and a half.

Yet once the country's economic circumstances improved exponentially and there was a belated stream of sports funding - and it's hard to think of a more deserving sports project than Croke Park given the GAA's contribution to society - the land was full of whingeing.

Government funding helped speed up the completion of the project but still only amounted to barely 40 per cent of the total cost of €265,000,000, a bill the GAA had been prepared to foot completely when embarking on the redevelopment. Repayment in those circumstances would have resulted in higher costs and prolonged financial stringency but the budgetary planning was in place.

Boom-time budgets are currently in the news even within the GAA with the realisation that all of those town-centre venues are worth a fortune or certainly enough to fund state-of-the-art developments, albeit at a remove from the original location.

In some cases this makes sense but it's possible to feel a little sad at a process, which takes away thriving venues from population centres and drops them out of town. Dan McCartan, chair of the National Infrastructure and Safety committee, which monitors redevelopment schemes and issues recommendations on them to Central Council, has made the point that the GAA must take into account all aspects of these proposals, not just the bottom line.

So far there hasn't been major dislocation and Nemo Rangers, the club that virtually pioneered this type of deal, hasn't even left its parish but it's important to remember the Cork club had acquired its new property some time previously and had been playing and training there prior to the redevelopment.

Nemo have found the migration to be a success. Public access to the club's leisure facilities hasn't, as initially feared, diluted the tight-knit atmosphere among members whereas the expanded amenities have proved a magnet for parents and the juvenile sections are thriving.

Certainly there hasn't been any major uprooting of clubs from communities in return for bigger and better facilities, along the lines of the deal done by National League soccer club Bohemians in respect of Dalymount Park which entails relocating to out near the airport, a distance of roughly six miles.

You can't blame the club for wanting better facilities and cash in hand but the relentless submission of community and recreational interests to the voracious appetite of property developers is a depressing aspect of modern life.

For all of the misrepresentation and despite the pervasive material obsessions of the age, the GAA is aware in the end, money isn't everything.