Yes, I understand that. But are they really hard up with money that they really can't make the pool/gym free? They charge $1 per hour for the tennis courts, which I understand is very cheap, but why do they need to charge us at all? Same with textbooks...
I know universities are there for profit, but still its kinda unfair. My whole argument was in response to this:
i personally agree with pretty much all of the things you guys are saying, textbooks are a waste of money (in my experience) and lecturers that author books do get a commission (royalties), and abolishing the ssaf would literally be a 0.8% revenue hit to the university (using 2014 income figures) (although there is SA-Help which makes it a bit easier). even having free use of the sporting facilities for all students would BARELY (<0.8%) hit the bottom line for the university overall, and these are all ways to to massively improve quality of life for us.
https://www.unimelb.edu.au/publications/docs/2014-annual-report.pdf the thing is though, the uni has structured most of these payments we make to be hypothecated for the entities that make the monies ie; gym membership directly pays for gym maintenance, ssaf pays for umsu stuff (this is how clubs can have so many free events and free barbecues for members who only paid $2 to sign up and run events for very low costs (umsu has a reimbursement cap of $500 for most events))
http://umsu.unimelb.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/UMSU-Clubs-and-Societies-Regulations-30-Jan-20121.pdf another argument most staff at the uni have made when i say "why should i have to pay for this?" is "to set a price signal so people dont abuse it and over use it, even a $1 cost will stop alot of people from using it (diminishing servicing costs)"
but yeah, textbooks are a waste of money usually, especially when lecturers who get royalties from them push them on to us (very unethical especially since they dont disclose it) and if the uni could organise its finances better, we really shouldn't have to pay an ssaf let alone gym membership/to use tennis courts etc. etc.
these things would be a massive quality of life increase for us (you and i) and attract many more good students and staff to the university, but i doubt they will do it any time soon because their most recently published annual report shows an overall underlying operating margin of 0.3% and a) making these things free would most likely cause a >0.3% decrease in **revenues (and potentially increase servicing costs because of the elastic nature of demand) and therefor b) the uni would be in the red for the year which is a bad headline lol
also if you are wondering how they spend circa 1,886,100,000 in a year the answer is capital intensive research/property development/property acquisition etc. when you look at the annual report the university doesnt really keep that much profit tbh and they spend most of the money they earn on good uses (staff, research, scholarships, etc.) * staff costs alone are just over half a billion dollars a year assuming national average wage for all 8075 staff (8075 full time equivalent staff as of 2014, not 8075 separate staff members)
theoretically they could just choose to not build a building or get rid of a few million of scholarships or something to make all the shit that we want to be free, free, but the divided nature of the university makes that not a thing ie; why would someone who manages the money allocated to the faculty of science (for example) say "you know what we should get rid of this scholarship so the gym is free". it doesnt make sense to the person in that particular role and hence it doesnt really happen
i had a phase where i was really mad about all of this but then someone said all the information is online and in the annual reports and stuff and i said "fair enough" and had a look and thats what ive found lol feel free to do it yourself and prove me wrong, maybe ive missed something
EDIT: added a sentence where the * is, made a sentence clearer where ** is