The Chronicle’s Raiders beat writer Vittorio Tafur has a pretty big scoop: the Raiders and 49ers have been in talks about sharing a future Bay Area stadium. Tafur goes on to mention where the Niners are regarding the Santa Clara stadium concept, but mentions nothing about the new Coliseum proposal for the Raiders. At this point it makes the most sense to consider Santa Clara Plan A simply due to the work that has already been done to date. The Coliseum is still in its initial study phase. Speaking of which, as much as I harp on Oakland rushing through the Victory Court EIR process, the new Coliseum was supposed to have its EIR completed in as little as 15 months. Yet here we are, about 9-10 months in, and not a peep.

Fortunately for both teams, the NFL has taken their situations into account and may be ready to lend them a hand. Tim Kawakami notes that as part of the new CBA, the Bay Area has been identified as a place that could receive a loan from the NFL for stadium building.

It’s complicated, though. The CBA designates “stadium credits” for three locations — Los Angeles and presumably the Bay Area are two of them — but not specific teams, the source said.

The “credits” are a precursor to the NFL setting up a formal stadium-loan program, another league source said Tuesday. So, yes, the Raiders could be involved in anything the 49ers try to do, possibly in a shared-stadium venture, as the NFL has encouraged for years.

That isn’t ideal for the Yorks, of course. But at least they know the money could be there, and that means they can keep churning toward their end goal.

Without the NFL loan option, the churning would have been mostly over right here and now.

Initially, a big sticking point in the CBA negotiations was the NFL’s protection of funds for stadia, previously known as the G-3 loan program. The players wanted a piece of the entire pie. While ratification hasn’t been completed, it looks like the players will get a piece of the entire revenue pie, albeit a smaller percentage than what was prescribed in previous CBAs (60% of a smaller pie). Now that it appears that a successor to G-3 is part of the possibly 10-year deal, the prospects should be looking up for the 49ers in terms of getting their funding.

Now let’s take this a step further. Should Santa Clara be the final site for both teams (with the Raiders signing a long-term lease), that should presumably open up the Coliseum for the A’s, right? Yes and No. True, the tenant that destroyed the Coliseum for the A’s would be gone, but they’d be leaving behind $100 million in debt service for Oakland and Alameda County to pay for. There’s no chance that the A’s or MLB will bite on paying off that debt, yet the city and county would need to figure out a way to service it somehow. That could pave the way for the reuse option I drew up last year, but that’s a risky proposition in and of itself. Any reuse of the old Coliseum would require new revenue bonds from the Authority, and I doubt it would politically popular unless it was true slam dunk proposal. Plus there’d be the stink of the Raiders coming back less than 20 years earlier, not selling the place out as advertised, destroying the Coliseum for the A’s, successfully suing Oakland/Alameda County, then negotiating an early end to their stay and finally leaving again.

Finally, there’s A’s ownership’s role in this. Surely, they’d much rather be in control of their situation instead of picking up other teams’ scraps. Revenue generation will be limited at the Coliseum, and the market for ancillary development around the Coliseum is weak. Moreover, redevelopment’s death takes with it any project money for the area, as noted in Oakland’s declaration of support for the Monday lawsuit. The A’s will be funding a greater percentage of their venue privately than either football team, so they should have more say in where they go. As we’ve seen over the last couple of years, you can’t always get what you want.