[Glice]

I can see the logic - £100,000 might seem like a lot, but for a five-piece band that translates to £20,000 each. Following this, presumably the shareholders amount for up to 49% of the shares (couldn't be more or they could buy out the band) and it's unlikely the company itself would take less than 30%, leaving the band, hypothetically, with 20% of themselves. Split five ways, that means the band own only 4% of themselves.

You can see the logic if you have the potential to make money back. Presumably the bonds only apply to certain aspects of the band - the record itself and the profits thereof. So the band make their living on merchanise, tossing out a shit free EP of covers of Waterloo Sunset for the morons who subsidise them.

I think it's a wishy-washy idea, and will only work for artists that are 'investible'. Anyone remember Popex? It's basically that idea, but with real money. I can't see why it wouldn't work, but I'd be surprised if a decent enough band that weren't potentially 'big' profitable wouldn't persist down the complete control indie route so as to keep all profits to themselves.