Feyenoord Transfer Window Critique: Leadership Under Fire

Feyenoord’s summer window has barely closed, but the inquest has already started. On De Telegraaf’s podcast Kick-Off, journalists Mike Verweij and Valentijn Driessen tore into the Rotterdam club’s leadership, accusing technical director Dévy Rigaux and general director Robert Eenhoorn of mishandling a crucial market.

“They did something wrong in this window”

Verweij pointed straight at the numbers. According to him, Rigaux publicly distanced himself from predecessor Dennis te Kloese, yet worked with a far stronger financial position than he let on.

“Rigaux has taken a huge swipe at his predecessor Te Kloese,” Verweij said as the conversation turned to Feyenoord. “But now it turns out that Te Kloese, with the money for Hadj Moussa included, had 40 million.”

Then came the list of missed opportunities. Verweij claimed there had been:

• A €25 million bid for Ayase Ueda, who ultimately left for Lille OSC for far less.
• Interest in Leo Sauer Read that, with bonuses, “could almost have risen to 35 million.”
• A €20 million offer from Hull City for Targhalline.

“If they had simply done their job and sold the right players, Feyenoord would for the time being have had a great deal of financial resources,” Verweij argued. He reminded listeners that Te Kloese had previously assembled a squad “worth around €120 million”.

His conclusion was blunt: “So I think Rigaux and Eenhoorn did something wrong in this transfer window. If they had sold Read immediately, they could have been much more effective in the transfer market.”

The power of the Friends of Feyenoord

Driessen then shifted the debate away from pure sporting policy and onto the club’s ownership structure. For him, the key to the entire transfer story lies with one powerful bloc: the Friends of Feyenoord.

“It all comes back to the Friends of Feyenoord again,” he said. “They have 49 per cent of the shares. And the moment Feyenoord pay €17.5 million, they lose 25 per cent. And in two years’ time, again.”

According to Driessen, the club’s hands are tied by contractual obligations linked to transfer profits.

“Feyenoord are also obliged to buy part of the shares if they post a positive transfer balance in a transfer window. And they certainly would have done that if one of those transfers had gone through. Then that transfer balance would have been so high that they would have been obliged to buy part of the Friends’ purchases.”

That, in his eyes, changes the entire reading of the summer. Big outgoing deals would not just have strengthened the transfer budget; they would have forced Feyenoord to reduce the Friends’ stake.

A heavy accusation over Hadj Moussa

From there, Driessen went a step further, linking that ownership tension directly to the collapsed transfer of Hadj Moussa to Al-Ittihad. Officially, a rejected bank guarantee has been cited as the reason the move fell through. Driessen does not buy it.

“It concerns a €40 million transfer. It concerns Saudi Arabia, just ask Ajax. They have always had the money and are solvent,” he said.

His claim is that internal politics, not financial risk, stopped the deal. According to Driessen, the Friends of Feyenoord simply do not want to be bought out, and that reluctance fed straight into decision-making at the top.

“The Friends of Feyenoord do not want out. And Eenhoorn came in at the request of the Friends. He is their favourite, and became director. So he is not going to go against those Friends. Eenhoorn allowed himself to be influenced into not letting the Hadj Moussa transfer go through,” Driessen stated.

He painted a picture of a club that, at a decisive moment, became hard to reach and slow to act.

“Feyenoord were also hardly reachable by phone, it was very difficult to get in touch with them. It was dragged out for a very long time, and in the end the medical could no longer take place.”

“Extension of the Friends”

Driessen’s criticism of Eenhoorn was relentless. In his view, the director is not an independent figure but the operational arm of the Friends of Feyenoord inside the club.

“Robert Eenhoorn is simply an extension of the Friends of Feyenoord. He is their mate,” Driessen said. “The moment someone puts you forward and you can serve their interests, that happens nine times out of 10.”

He also recalled previous signals from Eenhoorn about the share structure.

“He has previously made it known that he is not exactly eager to buy out the Friends. And then you remain stuck with those Friends,” Driessen concluded.

For Feyenoord, the accusation is clear and stinging: a transfer window steered less by sporting ambition and financial opportunity, and more by a shareholder group determined to hold on to power.