Oakland Gives Raiders New Offer to Return : Pro football: Deal has none of ticket guarantees that were part of package killed after local opposition. Risk is shifted from city and county to the team, officials say.

Officials here Thursday unveiled the details of a new, much less generous Oakland and Alameda County offer to bring the Raiders back to the East Bay and vowed to try to complete a deal by the end of July.

The offer contains none of the $428 million in ticket guarantees that marked the first Oakland deal with the Raiders, killed April 17 after massive local opposition.

It replaces a $54.9-million franchise fee to the team with a $31.9-million, two-year loan, repayable with 10% interest. And it offers taxable, rather than tax-exempt, bonds for renovation and expansion of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum. Repayment of the bond debt would have first priority in the distribution of stadium revenues.

In short, as a battery of Oakland officials repeatedly emphasized Thursday, it shifts the risk for a successful Raider comeback in Oakland from the city and county to the team. It would be the team, not the city and county--as in the first agreement--that would be responsible for marketing all tickets, premium seats and luxury boxes.

But at the same press conference where the proposal was announced, a partner of Al Davis in the ownership of the football team said the Raiders are not committed to any offer at this stage and will continue to negotiate with all parties in Los Angeles, Sacramento and elsewhere that might be interested in being home to the Raiders.

“It’s important to keep in mind this is only a proposal,” said the partner, Jack Brooks. “It’s a series of concepts. It will have to be translated into a comprehensive agreement.”

Even then, he said, after approval by the city and county, it would be left to Davis to say whether he would accept the deal. “I don’t speak for Al Davis,” Brooks said. “Very few people do.”

The net result of the day’s events was to make it clear that, just as they did last spring, the Raiders are playing one city against another in an attempt to get the best deal.

In Los Angeles, soon after details of the new Oakland offer were disclosed, Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani, speaking for the Bradley Administration, said: “We’re engaged in tough negotiations here. There are negotiations elsewhere, and the Raiders will take the best deal.”

Sources privy to ongoing talks between Los Angeles Coliseum representatives and the Raiders said there recently has been some narrowing of differences over the size of an advance payment Davis is demanding to stay in Los Angeles, with Davis coming down, but that wide differences remain.

However, the sources maintained, now that Oakland has seemingly abandoned the idea of paying the Raiders a franchise fee, it could be that Davis also will have to lower his sights in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles negotiators have been offering Davis a Coliseum renovation that would cost as much as $140 million, plus unspecified fees.

Negotiators for Oakland and Raider partner Brooks said Thursday that what is under discussion is a return of the Raiders for the 1992 football season, after their Los Angeles Coliseum contract has expired.

However, Brooks did not rule out a possible return to Oakland as early as this fall, if an agreement could be reached for the team to buy out of the last two seasons of its Los Angeles contract.

The new Oakland offer, meanwhile, brings together lame duck Mayor Lionel Wilson, who was the prime backer of the city and county’s aborted $660-million deal with the team in March, and the two key opponents of that agreement, City Councilman Wilson Riles Jr., now a candidate for mayor, and attorney Frank Russo. Riles and Russo were the prime movers behind a petition campaign that effectively killed the first deal.

Wilson, Riles and Russo were among the city officials at the rostrum at Thursday’s press conference, and all three said they support the new offer.

Riles, who nosed out Wilson for a position in the mayoral runoff in November against Democratic Assemblyman Elihu Harris, said:

“This is a fundamentally different deal. It meets the requirements we were supporting when we petitioned for a referendum against the first deal. It puts the government in its proper roles and doesn’t allow it to become involved in marketing professional football. There is only a minimum risk to public funds. . . . It’s the best possible deal we could get.”

Wilson said he was glad there was more support for this offer than the first deal. While he said he would still support the first deal, he said he also was supporting the less generous offer. Bringing back the Raiders would be good for the city, the mayor asserted.

Reporters pressed Brooks for reasons why the Raiders would be prepared to accept so much less than in the first deal.

Brooks responded by saying that under the first deal, had profits proved larger than projected, it would have been the city and county that would have benefited. Under the new offer, he said, it would be the team.

But, he quickly noted, the Raiders have agreed to nothing yet.

The Oakland plan now goes to the City Council, a majority of whose members were present at the news conference, for a vote next Tuesday on the concepts embodied in the offer. Assuming the council approves, city officials will sit down with Brooks and try to hammer out definitive final language, and the deal could be approved by the City Council and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors by July 10.

But, both sides noted Thursday, there is no deadline for when the Raiders would accept or decline it. When Sacramento made an offer to the Raiders last fall, the Sacramento City Council put a 90-day deadline on Davis saying yes or no, and when the 90 days passed, the council killed the offer.

The lease envisioned under the new offer would be for 24 years, with the Raiders having an option to pull out after 15. City officials produced outside consultants Thursday who contended that the stadium renovation and expansion bonds could easily be repaid during the 15-year-period, and, in any case, full details of a final agreement will be made public in time for plenty of debate before the council and the supervisors vote, the officials said.