Lew Wolff, the A's co-owner, is in New York for the team's series against the Yankees and visited the set of Bloomberg News television Wednesday morning for an interview.

I'll give credit to the network hosts for asking all the right questions about the A's business and ballpark situation. But in responding, Wolff didn't offer up any massive new information. The closest thing to a scoop was Wolff's statement that the team and Oakland are close to signing a 10-year lease extension at the Coliseum, something the A's have been seeking for a while.

That has been well reported here and elsewhere. Wolff said there have been "very good conversations" with representatives of the Joint Powers Authority that operates the Coliseum complex and an agreement could be reached in "the next couple of weeks," pending approval of all parties.

"We're close enough on the deal points that I think we'll soon come to a mutual accommodation," Wolff said.

None of it means anything, of course, until that deal is actually signed. But because Wolff uttered those words on a network show out of New York, the story developed some legs.

But before anyone asks: Even if the A's do sign this agreement with Oakland, that does not mean Wolff's interest in moving his team to San Jose is dead. And it doesn't mean that the San Jose ballpark project is a dead issue for Wolff and co-owner John Fisher.

Because actually, Wolff was sort of asked that question on the Bloomberg show and declined to draw any conclusions about where the A's will eventually land in the long run.

"It'll be a 10-year lease and we'll find out what happens during all that," Wolff said when it was suggested that such a deal settled things in terms of Oakland and San Jose. "I just don't know."

The reason he doesn't know is because he still doesn't know what Oakland wants to do in terms of its ballpark/stadium problem with the Raiders and the A's, who share the Coliseum. Oakland still has not come up with a suitable new ballpark proposal, with Major League Baseball and the A's rejecting plans at downtown's Howard Terminal and the Coliseum City project still having a major "funding gap," according to a city official.

We might get some clues about all this, however, when the lease extension is signed and its terms are revealed. Here's why:

The A's lease runs out after the 2015 season. But last autumn, they requested a 10-year extension so that they could invest in scoreboard and other improvements at the Coliseum and write off those improvements over a 10-year period, likely for tax purposes.

Oakland has resisted such an extension, however, because it is also dealing with the Raiders' request for a new football-only stadium. Mark Davis, the Raiders' owner, is on record as saying he wants the structure to be built on the site of the Coliseum, which would have to be demolished.

But if the A's have a lease to play there for 10 years, it would obviously be difficult to tear down the facility. Anticipating this, the A's have asked for an "out" clause in their 10-year lease extension that would allow them to walk if the Raiders and Oakland reach an agreement on a new stadium under Davis' terms.

Also, the financial obligations of the A's under their requested terms are so minimal that the team could buy out the lease with relative ease after five or six years. And it takes five years to develop and construct a new ballpark project, anywhere.

Oakland initially objected to all those terms. That was the hangup in getting a deal done. So what happened to change things? Have Oakland, Alameda County and the Joint Powers Authority suddenly backed down and given the A's what they want? Or has there been some sort of compromise? We'll discover the answers when the lease is signed.

A lease extension is good news for A's fans and all Bay Area baseball fans, because it means the team won't be leaving. Plus, Oakland has finally wised up and realized that it's better to have the A's sign some form of lease extension rather than no lease extension. But how will the Raiders respond? Does this mean Oakland has decided to put the NFL team on the back burner or let it pursue a new stadium elsewhere?

There are so many moving parts to all this.

This week, the San Jose lawsuit against Major League Baseball received a court date with a scheduled appeal hearing on Aug. 12 in U.S. District Court. San Jose's suit challenges the sport's anti-trust exemption that allows the Giants to claim territorial rights over Santa Clara County. If San Jose wins the right to pursue the case, that could open a big box of untold developments.

Also, the San Jose mayoral primary was held Tuesday with good results for baseball fans. Dave Cortese and Sam Liccardo emerged from a large field as the two candidates who will face off in the fall election. Cortese and Liccardo have been supportive of the San Jose downtown ballpark plan.

Madison Nguyen, who finished just out of the top two, had been a supporter of the San Jose Giants franchise, which is owned by the San Francisco Giants and has fought the A's move to San Jose. Municipal Stadium, where the San Jose Giants play, is located within Nguyen's council district. It made sense that she would have a good relationship with them and accept their contributions. But it was unclear how that relationship would play out if Nguyen had been elected mayor and the Giants kept fighting an A's move.

The election of Cortese or Liccardo means that a downtown San Jose ballpark project will have a supporter at City Hall, continuing the policy of Mayor Chuck Reed in that regard.

And in Oakland, Mayor Jean Quan is up for re-election. Not sure how the ballpark/stadium issues will play into that campaign. But it's bound to come up in any debates. Quan has been all over the place in her stances about the A's and Raiders.

Finally, Wolff's interview with Bloomberg contained a few other little nuggets that might have slipped the attention of the New York hosts. One was his statement that he'd still like to negotiate a settlement with the Giants over territorial rights rather than have the San Jose lawsuit resolve the matter.

Another was Wolff's affirmation that he and Fisher have no plans whatsoever to sell the A's, saying that "we'd like keep the team in the families that own it." And finally, there was a not-so-subtle indirect dig at the Giants when Wolff declared that he is of the philosophy that team owners should "put baseball first and their teams a close second."

The implication: If the Giants put baseball first instead of themselves, they would find a way for the A's to thrive with a new ballpark in San Jose.