I think the buy out of the contract is so exaggerated. Van Gils is from Belgium. There is this Belgium law why he was able to break his contract. He would have done it regardless of Red Bull or not. So it is not a matter of Red Bull breaks the contract, it is a matter that the rider wants to get out.
In addition I wonder if anyone had so much problems that Uijtdebroeks broke his contract and signed with Visma that what Red Bull is trying to do now. Pretty skewed perception for me
LOL
People were super negative about the whole Uijtdebroecks case, one in particular was the hypocrite Ralph Denk himself btw. Only the Visma fans were making it seem like it was just fine.
Also, it doesn't mean that because there's a law that makes it possible (a lot of countries have similar laws, although not always one that makes it that easy), that it is morally ok or fine for the sport when leaders of smaller teams can just extend for more money and then leave 8 months later at the end of the year given the team has no way to replace him. If you don't understand why people are pretty negative about that in general you're blinded by your Red Bull adoration. Just imagine Astana buying out the best Cofidis riders in november so that they can stay in the WT? Completely normal and fine?
And no, Van Gils would not have done it "regardless of Red Bull". Carera offered him to other teams while still being on contract (against UCI rules, and even court would not be really happy about this but impossible to prove), basically trying to see what those teams would pay. Astana was the first to bite but immediately backed off when they got a no from Lotto. Ineos also asked Lotto (when Pidcock was about to leave) but also backed off initially. Red Bull never really backed off, they full on negotiated a contract with Van Gils and entourage (which is borderline illegal btw, but again not easy to prove). Astana and Ineos only came back into the picture once it was clear to them Van Gils was going to break his contract.