Carlton have most if not all the power in this. They own Gibbs for another 3 years. Contract. Simples.
Look in this day and age of front loaded and rear loaded contracts I'd have a lot of sympathy for Carlton if Gibbs has been on a front loaded contract for the first two of the five years, and when the contract drops he wants out. But is that the case? I don't think so...
On the other hand, if he wants to move for family reasons and they haven't been stiffed on the contract then it'll happen. Why would you keep someone at a club for 3 years against their will to prove a point? People's circumstances change. What if Bryce moves to Adelaide? Turns up to play for Carlton every week. Fulfils his contractual obligations.
It's in no-one's best interests. You are correct, if Carlton want to hold Gibbs to his contract for the next three years they can. But that's a lose-lose-lose scenario. Why on earth would anyone do that?
How do you think Bryce would be feeling about SOS and his refusal to talk to the Crows (....if that's even true which I doubt)?
Do you think that he'd be feeling supported? Do you think it could possibly sour his relationship with the club?
The messaging that he would be happy to stay and play at Carlton, and it's only my opinion, is because few players want to tip a bucket on their club on the way out. (Almost) everyone wants to leave on good terms.
If Carlton hang onto him for another 3 years good luck to them. He may not even play them out, and I'm serious on that. Play a year commuting from Adelaide and then retire.
A fair trade will get done, but if not...the Crows are the least damaged. They can move onto other trade targets. Or just move on.
Carlton is stuck with someone who doesn't want to be there. That's a loss for their club, and the player.
Half the trades done every year are for contracted players. The GWS players Carlton are looking to trade in, are they all out of contract?