Chris Johnson told reporters Wednesday that he is "of course" prepared to hold out.

im totally with chris johnson on this one.its been said more than once that if a team can cut you before your contract if up than a player has a right to hold out for more money.and how can anyone disagree with that.chris wants to go down as one of the best running backs that ever played, so i dont think when he gets his money hes gunna run stop playing hard.so why dont we just pay him the money while he IS the best running back rather than when hes on his decline.

the way the nfl is set up im surprised there not a whole lot more hold outs for more money.30%rule or not they need to pay the player when they perform.how much money do you think the top 5 players in the draft are gunna get paid this year?do you think they are gunna take a pay cut beccause of the of the possible lockout next year.i mean dang i bet our 1st pick morgan is gunna get a fatter check then cj the 1st game.so just pay the man because hes earned it.i dont care if your played 2 years or 10 years if you have shown you can play like the best than your should be paid like the best.

by the way him new so dont bash me to much.

 

See JaMarcus Russell. He'll likely have to pay back his signing bonus that was good thru 2012. The Raiders are suing him right now.

 

Even in the most egregious cases, like Vick and Jamarcus, the players have to pay back a small percentage of their signing bonuses. Also, roster bonuses and guaranteed salary cannot be recovered. Bottom line, a player signs a contract knowing that he only gets what is guaranteed in it unless he is good enough to stay on the team.

The team still made Johnson a millionaire before he played a down in the NFL. Poor guy.

 

This lawsuit is frivolous and any legal expert will tell you Jamarcus wont pay a dime back. That's just Al Davis being Al Davis.