With the clock ticking, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is betting big that a combination of $600 million in private money from Ronnie Lott’s investment group, $200 million in public money and an equal amount from the National Football League will be enough to keep the stadium-hungry Raiders from moving to Las Vegas.

At this point, the deal — which is being shuttled between the Oakland City Council and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors for approval — is just a broad outline of possible funding sources. There has been no input from Raiders owner Mark Davis, who down the road may be asked to sell part of the team to Lott and his partners.

“That’s something they will talk about after the stadium deal gets done,” said one source who is privy to the talks but not authorized to speak on the record.

Davis would be asked to kick in an additional $300 million.

Still unresolved is the outstanding $95 million city and county debt from the Coliseum renovation that lured the Raiders back from Los Angeles in the 1990s, according to a knowledgeable source.

Nevertheless, with the NFL poised to vote as early as January on a Raiders move to Las Vegas, the heat is on for Oakland to come up with a plan countering the deal being offered by casino king Sheldon Adelson, which includes $750 million in hotel tax money already approved by the state of Nevada.

In Oakland, both the city and Alameda County would be asked to put plenty of skin in the game. Under terms of the deal being proposed, sources say, the city and county would jointly put up $200 million to upgrade infrastructure at the Coliseum site. That money would be repaid from revenue generated by the stadium project.

The city and county would also lease 125 acres of Coliseum property to the Oakland City Pro Football Group, led by former 49er and Raider Lott and fellow former NFL player Rodney Peete. About 90 acres would be reserved for the new 55,000- to 58,000-seat stadium, plus about 8,500 parking spaces. The remaining 35 acres would be devoted to a mixed-use retail development, probably featuring restaurants, sports bars and other forms of entertainment — plus, possibly, a hotel.

In exchange, the city and county would share some percentage of non-football revenues at the stadium — from concerts, soccer matches, college football championships and the like — plus new taxes generated by the commercial development. There has been talk that some of the money could be used to pay the debt from the 1990s.

The big money behind the deal would come from Fortress Investment Group of New York, which sources say has pledged up to $600 million.

While declining to discuss specifics, Gordon Runté, managing director at Fortress, confirmed for the first time Tuesday that his group is working with others “to structure a stadium financing and development deal that we believe would provide an attractive alternative for the Oakland Raiders.”

“A lot of work remains to be done,” he added, “but we are pleased with progress made to date in creating a framework for a potential deal.”

Add in the Raiders’ money and $200 million from the NFL stadium building fund, and you have a development deal worth north of $1.3 billion.

Right now, however, Schaaf needs to show she has the backing of Alameda County supervisors and the Oakland City Council, which jointly oversee the stadium site.

The mayor fumbled the snap on her first play for approval when she announced out of the blue on KTVU that she was sending the deal to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors for a preview in closed session last week.

“It was a holiday week — we didn’t even have a full board,” said one county supervisor who asked not to be named because of the sensitive nature of the talks.

The supervisor said the deal was also lacking a “stress test” by independent auditors to see whether the income projections would hold up in an economic downturn and not leave taxpayers holding a mega-million dollar bag of debt, as happened with the 1990s deal.

As a result, the Board of Supervisors took no action, but some members were left fuming at what they perceived as grandstanding by the mayor.

The next stop was a closed session review by the Oakland City Council on Tuesday.

It’s the second time that the “outline” of the deal was presented to the council. The first, delivered last month, was met with a flurry of questions.

One sticking point the Oakland deal sidesteps is the call for Davis to take on Lott and his partners as minority owners — something the NFL reportedly would like to see happen, but which also would mean another set of complicated negotiations.

Instead, the plan is to present the outline directly to NFL owners — along with votes of support from city and county officials — to show that the locals are ready to put up serious money to keep the team in place.

The hope is that the show of support will be enough for the NFL owners to block the team’s move to Nevada and open the door to the locals talking directly with Davis, which he has refused to do as long as the Las Vegas deal is on the table.

As for what happens to the Oakland A’s, who share a home with the Raiders at the Coliseum, team officials have already made it clear they’re willing to give up their Coliseum lease if the Raiders stay.

And in fact, the A’s — who just announced a major shakeup of their front office — are more focused than ever on finding a new home closer to downtown. The mayor and the Port of Oakland are pressing the team to build a ballpark at Howard Terminal, just north of Jack London Square.

Whether Schaaf can pull it all together in time for the NFL meeting remains to be seen. Alameda County supervisors are not taking well to Schaaf trying to call the shots. Her relations with the Oakland City Council are rocky as well, with members feeling they are being given a back seat in the negotiations.

It’s also interesting to note that Schaaf has no vote on the county board and can vote at the City Council only if there is a tie.

On the other hand, the Raiders are winning on the field, and recent polls show that 30 percent of Oakland voters feel that keeping the team should be a high priority.